SENTENNIAL  CELEBRATION 
OF  THE  CONSECRATION 
OF  THE  RT.  REV.  EDWARD 
BASS,  D.  D.,  AS  THE  FIRST  BISHOP 
OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 


SDioccjefe  of  2$a;gj0acJ)ustett£. 


ONE  HUNDREDTH  ANNIVERSARY 

OF  THE 

CONSECRATION 

OF  THE 

) kf' 

Rt.  Rev.  EDWARD  BASS,  D.  D. 


THE  FIRST  BISHOP  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 


1797-MAY  7 — 1897. 


BOSTON: 

Printed  by  order  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese. 
1897. 


V 


1934  Howard  Mem-  i 3 £,' TilHNtn 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. 


THE  first  Bishop  of  Massachusetts,  the  Right  Rev. 
Edward  Bass,  D.  D.,  was  consecrated  on  the  seventh 
| day  of  May,  1797.  As  the  one  hundredth  anniversary  of 
^ that  event  approached,  the  present  Bishop  of  the  Diocese 
2 and  the  Standing  Committee  decided,  upon  consultation, 
that  it  should  be  appropriately  celebrated.  A special  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  prepare  for  the  celebration,  consist- 
ing of  the  Rev.  John  S.  Lindsay,  D.  D.,  the  Rev.  A.  St.  John 
Chambre,  D.  D.,  Messrs.  Edward  L.  Davis  and  A.  J.  C.  Sow- 
don.  The  Right  Rev.  William  Lawrence,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of 
the  Diocese,  was  requested  by  this  committee  to  deliver  an 
historical  discourse  suitable  to  the  occasion,  in  some  church 
in  Boston,  on  the  seventh  of  May,  1897,  to  be  preceded  by 
the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Communion.  Trinity  Church 
was  courteously  offered  for  the  Service  by  the  Wardens  and 
Vestry  of  the  Parish,  and  was  accepted. 

It  was  also  deemed  proper  that  there  should  be  a social 
o gathering  in  connection  with  the  commemoration  of  Bishop 
**  Bass’s  Consecration,  at  which  speeches  dealing  with  the 
§ history  of  the  Church  in  other  parts  of  our  country  should 


P 

CD 


868025 


4 


Introductory  Note. 


be  made  by  prominent  Churchmen  from  certain  other  Dio- 
ceses. The  Episcopalian  Club  of  Massachusetts  generously 
proposed  to  entertain  at  luncheon  about  two  hundred  Clergy- 
men and  laymen,  at  the  Hotel  Brunswick,  and  other  guests 
were  provided  for  in  a hotel  adjacent.  A representative 
from  each  of  the  five  Dioceses  of  the  Church  in  the  United 
States,  whose  Bishops  were  consecrated  prior  to  the  conse- 
cration of  Bishop  Bass,  was  invited  to  speak  at  the  luncheon 
— the  Dioceses  being  Connecticut,  Pennsylvania,  New  York, 
Virginia  and  Maryland.  The  expected  speaker  from  New 
York  was  not  present.  The  Rev.  Samuel  Hart,  D.  D.,  Pro- 
fessor in  Trinity  College,  Connecticut,  Mr.  Geo.  W.  Pepper, 
Professor  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  Joseph 
Bryan,  of  Richmond,  Virginia,  and  Mr.  Joseph  Packard,  of 
Baltimore,  Maryland,  represented  their  respective  Dioceses. 

The  historical  discourse  of  the  Bishop  of  Massachusetts, 
delivered  in  Trinity  Church,  and  the  speeches  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  different  Dioceses,  which  were  made  at  the 
luncheon,  are  published  in  this  pamphlet,  that  they  may  be 
preserved  in  permanent  form  and  read  by  many  who  were 
not  fortunate  enough  to  hear  them. 


HISTORICAL  DISCOURSE 


BY  THE 

Rt.  Rev.  WILLIAM  LAWRENCE,  D.  D., 


Bisbop  of  tbe  Diocese* 


HISTORICAL  DISCOURSE. 


ON  May  seventh,  1797,  in  Christ  Church,  Philadel- 
phia, the  Reverend  Edward  Bass,  D.  D.,  was 
consecrated  Bishop  of  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island. 
To  commemorate  this  event,  to  recall  the  life  and 
character  of  the  First  Bishop  of  Massachusetts,  and  to 
thank  God  for  His  goodness  to  the  Church  in  this 
Diocese,  we  meet  to-day. 

In  the  Town  Records  of  Braintree  stands  this  item  : 
“On  the  12  month,  3,  1657,  John  Bass  and  Ruth 
Aulden  were  married  by  John  Aulden  of  Duxbury.” 
This  “ Ruth  Aulden  ” was  the  great-grandmother  of 
Edward  Bass. 

In  the  Town  Records  of  Roxbury  is  written  : “ Dea- 
con Samuel  Bass,  aged  94,  departed  this  life  upon  the 
30th  day  of  Dec.,  1694  ; who  had  been  a deacon  of 
the  Church  of  Braintree  for  the  space  of  above  50 
years,  and  the  first  deacon  of  that  Church  ; and  was 
the  father  and  grandfather  and  great-grandfather  of  a 


8 


Bishop  Lawrence s 


hundred  and  sixty- two  children  before  he  died.”  John 
Bass,  who  married  Ruth  Alden,  was  the  son  of  this 
same  Samuel  Bass.  From  such  sturdy  stock  came  the 
First  Bishop  of  Massachusetts. 

Edward  Bass,  son  of  Joseph  and  Elizabeth  Bass, 
was  born  in  Dorchester,  November  23,  1726,  and  four 
days  later,  braving  the  November  winds,  was  carried 
to  the  First  Church  and  there  baptized. 

The  fourth  child  in  a family  of  eleven  children  in 
the  Old  Bay  State  received  an  education  in  self- 
restraint,  experience  and  piety.  The  studies  of  Ed- 
ward Bass  were  also  encouraged,  for  he  entered 
Harvard  College  at  the  age  of  thirteen.  The  absence 
of  his  name  from  the  disciplinary  record  suggests  that 
he  was  a quiet,  faithful  student.  Twice  only  was  he 
fined  for  the  mild  offence  of  being  absent  “ from  Col- 
lege after  the  vacancy.” 

Graduating  in  1744,  he  remained  at  Cambridge, 
and  three  years  later  received  the  Master’s  Degree. 
The  subject  of  his  Master’s  thesis  is  suggestive  of  his 
trend  of  thought.  It  runs  thus  : “ Will  the  blessed  in 
the  future  world,  after  the  last  judgment,  make  use  of 
articulate  speech,  and  will  that  be  Hebrew  ? ” His  de- 
cision that  the  blessed  will  use  articulate  speech,  and 
that  the  language  spoken  will  be  Hebrew,  gives  force 
to  a favorite  dogma  of  that  day,  — the  small  number 
of  the  elect. 

He  seems  to  have  had  some  hesitation  as  to  his 
life  work,  for  he  remained  in  or  about  Cambridge  for 


Historical  Discourse. 


9 


over  six  years  after  graduation.  He  taught  school  at 
intervals,  and  then  turned  towards  the  Congregational 
ministry.  Having  obtained  a license  to  preach,  he 
supplied  vacant  pulpits  in  the  neighboring  towns. 
When  supplying  at  Malden,  he  received  from  the 
Wardens  of  St.  Paul’s  Church,  Newburyport^,  a request 
to  become  the  Assistant  Minister  of  that  Parish. 

Such  a call  gives  us  the  impression  that  he  must 
have  been  considering  a change  from  the  Congrega- 
tional Order  to  the  Ministry  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 
That  a young  graduate  of  Harvard,  of  Massachusetts 
descent,  a Congregational  licentiate,  should  have 
thought  of  entering  the  Ministry  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  at  all,  suggests  a movement  in  the  intellectual 
and  religious  condition  of  the  Commonwealth  which 
we  may  well  consider  before  we  follow  him  into  his 
new  office. 

A generation  or  more  before  this  date,  Puritanism 
in  Massachusetts  had  reached  its  highest  point  in 
organization  and  power.  Though  never  more  con- 
scious of  its  strength,  signs  of  weakness  were  already 
apparent.  The  ecclesiastical  leaders,  narrower  and 
more  autocratic  than  their  predecessors,  were  losing 
their  hold  on  the  people.  The  liberalizing  tendency  of 
Harvard,  leading  to  the  foundation  of  Yale  College,  is 
a water-mark  of  that  period.  The  population  was  be- 
coming more  varied.  Though  the  people  were  still 
hostile  to  the  Church  of  England  as  a system,  they  had 
the  blood  and  traditions  of  old  England  in  them,  and 


IO 


Bishop  Lawrences 


were,  perhaps  unconsciously,  becoming  more  open  to 
the  influence  of  its  thought  and  temper. 

Under  Governor  Andros  the  services  of  the  Church 
of  England  had  been  inaugurated  in  Boston  in  spite 
of  strong  protest.  King’s  Chapel  had  been  built  in 
1689  5 an<3  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gos- 
pel, organized  in  1701,  was  sending  Missionaries  of 
high  character  to  New  England.  Still,  the  hard  shell 
of  New  England  religion  had  hardly  been  scratched. 
When,  however,  the  Trustees  of  Yale  College  received 
a letter  from  President  Cutler  and  five  eminent  Con- 
gregational Ministers  of  the  neighborhood,  stating  that 
they  doubted  the  validity,  and  even  were  fully  per- 
suaded of  the  “ invalidity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  in 
opposition  to  Episcopal,”  there  was  an  explosion. 
“This  event,”  says  Quincy,  in  his  History  of  Harvard 
College,  “ shook  Congregationalism  throughout  New 
England  like  an  earthquake,  and  filled  its  friends  with 
terror  and  apprehension.” 1 

At  that  time  came  the  publication  in  Boston  of  a 
“ Discourse  concerning  Episcopacy,”  and  the  bitter 
controversy  between  John  Checkley  and  the  Congre- 
gational Clergy.  Then  followed  the  trial  and  con- 
demnation of  Checkley  for  publishing  and  selling  a 
scandalous  libel.  Such  incidents  brought  the  Church 
of  England  before  the  people,  though  not  always  in  its 
most  attractive  and  spiritual  form. 


Quincy’s  History  of  Harvard  College,  Vol.  I,  Chap,  xvii,  p.  364. 


Historical  Discourse. 


1 1 


The  sojourn  of  Dean  Berkeley  at  Newport  gave  to 
those  who  met  him  a fine  illustration  of  a Clergyman  of 
the  Church  of  England,  who  was  a gentleman,  a scholar, 
and  a man  of  deep  spiritual  life.  His  character,  genius 
and  enthusiasm  left  their  impression  in  America,  and 
his  gifts  to  Harvard  and  Yale  of  books  bearing  upon 
the  polity  and  history  of  the  English  Church  became, 
to  use  Berkeley’s  own  phrase,  “ a proper  means  to  in- 
form their  judgment  and  dispose  them  to  think  better 
of  our  Church.” 

Popular  religion  had  stiffened  into  a hard  theology 
and  mechanical  methods.  This  spiritual  drought 
offered  the  opportunity  for  Whitefield,  whose  eloquence 
and  emotional  fervor  swept  through  the  country  like 
a prairie  fire.  He  gathered  the  multitudes,  roused 
Harvard  College,  and  found  ten  or  twenty  thousand 
people  at  his  feet  on  Boston  Common. 

The  fanatical  excesses  which  followed  the  “ great 
awakening”  turned  many  persons  to  the  sober  and 
dignified  service  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  Dr.  Cutler, 
who  had  become  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  Boston,  re- 
ported to  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel 
that  many  dissenters  “ think  the  better  of  our  Church 
under  Mr.  Whitefield’s  invectives  against  it,  and  many 
of  them  take  it  as  a refuge  from  those  corrupt  princi- 
ples and  those  disorders  he  has  spread  among  them.” 

I would  not  have  you  infer  from  these  statements 
that  the  Church  of  England  had  any  considerable  place 
in  the  thoughts  or  esteem  of  the  people  of  New  Eng- 


12 


Bishop  Lawrence s 


land.  The  old  order  continued  strong,  and  was  well 
supported ; it  was  intrenched  behind  the  history,  tradi- 
tions, laws,  prejudices,  and  social  customs  of  the 
Colony ; and  it  was  not  disposed  to  yield  a point  to  any 
other  Church,  especially  to  that  one  which  in  the  popu- 
lar mind  was,  not  without  some  reason,  identified  with 
tyranny,  persecution  and  the  exile  of  their  fathers  from 
old  England.  They  were  little  conscious  that  they  had 
brought  with  them  some  of  those  same  features ; they 
did  not  catch  the  humor  of  Blaxton’s  response  to  the 
invitation  to  join  the  Puritan  Church  : “I  have  come 
from  England  because  I did  not  like  the  lord  bishops ; 
but  I cannot  join  with  you,  because  I would  not  be 
under  the  lord  brethren.”  Blaxton  sought  a freer 
atmosphere  in  Rhode  Island,  “ near  to  Master  Williams, 
but  far  from  his  opinions.” 

The  Church  of  England  was  represented  at  only  a 
few  points,  having  but  three  or  four  Parishes  of  any 
strength,  and  these  were  popularly  associated  with  the 
officers  of  the  Crown,  their  friends  and  servants. 

Some  of  the  earlier  Clergy  sent  from  England  had 
brought  disrepute  upon  the  Order  ; but  later,  under 
the  influence  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel,  and  by  the  entrance  of  New-England-born 
men  into  her  Ministry,  her  Clergymen  were  recognized 
as  earnest  and  of  good  ability.  Moreover,  the  com- 
parative indifference  of  the  Mother  Church  did  not  add 
dignity  to  the  Church  in  the  Colonies.  By  tradition 
and  habit,  but  by  no  sanction  of  law,  the  Bishop  of 


Historical  Discourse. 


3 


London  was  the  overseer  of  the  Churches  in  America. 
The  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  lacked  its  essen- 
tial feature,  the  Bishop.  There  were,  of  course,  no 
confirmations,  no  consecrations  of  Churches,  and  no 
episcopal  oversight.  A young  man  seeking  Orders  was 
obliged  to  undertake  the  expense,  hardship  and  risk 
of  a voyage  to  England  ; and  in  those  days,  quite  a 
fraction  of  those  who  went  fell  a victim  to  small-pox 
or  to  shipwreck.  When,  therefore,  a young  Harvard 
graduate,  a licentiate  in  the  Congregational  Church, 
born  and  bred  in  the  atmosphere  of  Puritanism,  deter- 
mined to  take  Orders  in  the  Church  of  England,  he 
must  have  been  moved  to  that  decision  by  strong  in- 
fluences and  reasons.  He  must  also  have  had  some 
strength  of  character. 

What  brought  young  Bass  to  his  decision  it  is  not 
easy  to  discover.  His  residence  of  nine  years  in  Cam- 
bridge suggests  some  hesitation  as  to  his  future.  His 
sober,  dignified  and  practical  character  made  him  no 
doubt  susceptible  to  the  temper  of  the  Prayer  Book. 
He  must  have  run  across,  in  the  College  Library,  the 
books  given  to  Harvard  by  Dean  Berkeley.  His 
unemotional  temperament  may  have  reacted  at  the 
preaching  of  Whitefield.  And,  then,  the  definite  call 
to  St.  Paul’s  Church,  Newburyport,  may  have  settled 
his  determination. 

The  history  of  the  Church  at  Newburyport  illus- 
trates the  struggles  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  A dis- 
sension in  the  Congregational  Church  upon  “ the 


H 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


Plains  ” at  Newbury,  due  to  the  building  of  a Meeting 
House  at  “ Pipe  Stave  Hill,”  offered  the  opportunity 
for  a few  Church  of  England  people,  with  some  of  the 
malcontents,  to  establish  their  form  of  worship.  A 
Chapel  called  “ Queen  Anne’s,”  the  second  Episcopal 
Church  in  Massachusetts,  was  built  in  1711.  The 
members  of  this  Church  were  compelled  to  contribute 
to  the  support  of  “ the  tolerated  dissenting  teacher,” 
as  they  termed  the  Congregational  Minister.  This  they 
resisted.  The  Governor  was  appealed  to,  and  after  a 
long  struggle  their  taxes  for  the  Minister  were  turned 
towards  the  support  of  their  own  Missionary. 

The  increase  of  the  shipping  interest  by  the  “water- 
side,” three  miles  from  the  Chapel,  developed  a large 
community  at  Newburyport,  which  in  fact  was  becom- 
ing the  centre  of  activity.  St.  Paul’s  Church  had  been 
built  there  in  1738.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Plant,  of  the 
Chapel,  who  was  old  and  feeble,  claimed  his  rights  as 
Rector  over  the  new  Church.  The  Wardens  resisted 
his  claim,  and  wanted  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bass  to  be  their 
Minister.  Mr.  Plant  won  his  point,  and  was  formally 
inducted,  with  the  understanding  that  Mr.  Bass  should, 
as  his  Assistant  Minister,  have  charge  of  St.  Paul’s. 
At  the  same  time,  he  expressed  his  good-will  by  relin- 
quishing £ 20  of  his  salary  to  his  assistant. 

The  young  man  had  already  been  inspected  by  one 
of  the  Wardens,  who  reported  his  satisfaction.  “Well, 
gentlemen,  he  pares  an  apple  and  lights  a pipe  more 


Historical  Discourse. 


15 


like  a gentleman  than  any  of  the  other  candidates  you 
have  brought  me.” 

Before  going  to  England  for  Ordination,  he  was 
examined  by  some  of  the  Clergy.  The  Wardens  asked 
him  to  read  the  Service  and  preach  in  St.  Paul’s.  In 
spite  of  the  protests  of  some  of  his  examiners,  he  did 
so,  and  they  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  London  that  “ the 
forward  young  man  did  proceed,  and  Mr.  Plant,  thro’ 
age  & infirmity,  was  weak  enough  to  countenance  the 
irregularity,  by  the  loan  of  a gown,  etc.” 

In  April,  1752,  Mr.  Bass  reported  himself  in  Lon- 
don to  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel. 
He  presented  his  credentials,  including  a letter  from 
the  President  and  Professors  of  Harvard  College,  in 
which  they  wrote  : “ We  Cheerfully  declare,  that  He 
hath  behaved  himself  during  his  abode  wth  us  up- 
rightly & blamelessly  as  to  his  Life  and  Conversation.” 
A letter  from  the  Minister  at  Braintree  described  him 
as  “a  man  of  Piety  and  Sense,  a good  Preacher,  and 
of  an  agreeable  temper.” 

Recommended  for  Holy  Orders  by  the  Society  for 
the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Rt.  Rev.  Thomas 
Sherlock,  Lord  Bishop  of  London,  Mr.  Bass  was  kindly 
received  and  examined.  He  signed  the  Declaration 
of  Conformity,  and  was  ordained  Deacon  by  the  Bishop 
in  the  Chapel  of  Fulham  Palace  on  May  17,  1752. 
Ordination  to  the  Priesthood  followed  on  May  24, 
1752. 


i6 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


Licensed  by  the  Bishop  of  London  “ to  perform  the 
ministerial  office  in  the  Province  of  New  England  in 
America,”  and  appointed  Missionary  by  the  Society, 
the  young  man  was  presented  to  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  who  gave  him  his  “ Paternal  Benediction 
and  Instructions.” 

In  the  autumn  of  1752  Mr.  Bass  entered  upon  his 
duties  as  Assistant  Minister  in  St.  Paul’s  Church. 

We  do  not  realize  in  these  days  the  importance  of 
the  Town  of  Newburyport  in  the  years  before  the 
Revolution.  In  population  and  in  shipping  it  stood 
with  Boston.  Its  commerce  reached  the  most  distant 
lands,  and  large  fortunes  were  made  by  the  ship- 
owners. An  atmosphere  of  opulence  and  dignity  per- 
vaded the  place.  There  was  no  grander  street  in  New 
England  than  the  High  Road  which  went  through  the 
Town  from  end  to  end,  passing  near  the  wharves  where 
lay  the  great  ships,  and  sweeping  out  until  you  reached 
the  open  “ Plains.”  A stranger  arriving  on  one  of  the 
great  ships  which  had  been  built  in  the  Merrimac, 
made  his  way  by  the  warehouses,  where  the  odor  of 
molasses,  rum  and  Eastern  spices  suggested  different 
climes,  and  soon  caught  a vista  of  the  broad,  grass- 
bound  roadway.  On  either  side  stood  in  full  dignity 
the  great,  square  colonial  houses,  with  their  large  barns 
and  sunny,  hospitable  yards ; sometimes  the  gambrel 
roof  presented  an  attractive,  home-like  appearance,  and 
then  as  the  country  opened,  the  plain  farm-houses  told 
of  comfort,  frugality  and  integrity. 


Historical  Discourse. 


1 7 


With  the  ringing  of  the  bells  on  a Sabbath  morning 
the  whole  community  appeared.  The  farmers  drove  in 
with  their  families.  The  mariners,  sail-makers,  tallow- 
chandlers,  coopers  and  rope-makers  scraped  the  tar 
and  grease  from  their  hands,  but  with  a strong  scent  of 
their  trade,  escorted  wife  and  children,  under  the  shade 
of  the  elms.  The  gentlemen  and  merchants  in  small- 
clothes, brilliant  vests,  and  blue  coats  with  silver  but- 
tons, assisted  their  families  — dressed  in  brocaded  silk, 
imported  by  themselves  — into  their  carriages,  and 
drove  in  solemn  dignity  to  worship. 

The  Congregational  Meeting  Houses  gathered  in 
the  largest  company,  for  that  was  the  established  order 
in  the  community.  St.  Paul’s,  however,  had  a congre- 
gation of  good  size  and  of  large  variety,  — the  negro 
servants  and  a few  of  the  richest  shippers.  Men  like 
Tristram  Dalton,  Elbridge  Gerry,  Rufus  King,  Thomas, 
Patrick  and  John  Tracy,  were  the  peers  of  any  citizens 
of  the  Colonies.  They  were  Churchmen  ; some  of 
them  had  been  in  other  countries ; and  they  were  men 
of  broad  minds  as  well  as  strong  character.  In  such  a 
Parish  the  Reverend  Edward  Bass,  then  only  twenty- 
six  years  old,  began  his  ministry.  There  he  remained, 
with  increasing  influence  and  respect,  for  over  fifty 
years,  until  his  death. 

Except  in  the  Parish  Records,  there  is  almost  noth- 
ing directly  from  Mr.  Bass’s  pen  that  we  can  draw 
from,  in  order  to  bring  before  us  his  interests,  habits 
of  life,  and  methods  of  work.  Such  information  as  we 


8 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


have  must  be  gathered  from  other  sources.  And  we 
may  well  pause  for  a few  minutes,  to  conjure  up  the 
salient  points  of  his  ministry  before  the  Revolution. 

A few  months  after  the  arrival  of  his  Assistant,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Plant  died,  and  Mr.  Bass,  now  Rector  of  the 
whole  Parish,  officiated  once  a month  for  several  years 
in  the  Queen  Anne’s  Chapel.  The  stipend  of  fifty 
pounds  from  the  Venerable  Society,  supplemented  by 
the  contributions  of  the  people,  soon  enabled  their 
Minister  to  take  larger  responsibilities,  and  in  1754  he 
married  Sarah  Beck. 

A vote  of  the  Vestry  that  a committee  “ agree  with 
some  suitable  person  or  persons  to  build  a porch  and 
front  gallery  to  said  Church,”  marks  an  early  increase 
in  the  congregation. 

A great  occasion  to  the  Parish  and  to  the  whole 
town,  was  the  purchase  and  installation  of  an  organ. 
To  have  planned  for  such  a radical  movement  suggests 
the  wealth  of  the  Parish,  and  their  appreciation  of  a 
richer  service  than  was  the  custom  of  those  days.  The 
Rector  himself  subscribed  £ 20  from  his  small  income. 
This  organ  had  been  left  by  Thomas  Brattle  to  Brattle 
Square  Church,  Boston,  under  the  conditions  of  his. 
will,  which  read : “ If  they  shall  accept  thereof  and 
within  a year  after  my  decease  procure  a sober  person 
that  can  play  skillfully  thereon  with  a loud  noise ; 
otherwise  to  the  Church  of  England  in  this  towne  on 
ye  same  terms  and  conditions.”  The  organ  was  re- 
fused by  the  Brattle  Square  Church,  as  “ they  did  not 


Historical  Discourse. 


19 


think  it  proper  to  use  the  same  in  the  publick  worship 
of  God.”  Later  it  was  accepted  by  King’s  Chapel, 
and,  having  ravished  the  ears  of  the  Governors  and 
citizens  of  Boston  for  over  forty  years,  was  transported 
to  Newburyport.  What  interest  this  wonderful  instru- 
ment aroused  there,  what  numbers  of  people  who  had 
never  visited  Boston  it  gathered,  we  can  imagine.  No 
doubt  Mr.  Bass  considered  with  a tempered  satisfaction 
the  large  congregations  attracted,  his  honesty  obliging 
him  to  confess,  by  other  sounds  than  that  of  his 
own  voice. 

His  regular  reports  to  the  Venerable  Society  tell  by 
their  monotony,  as  well  as  by  their  carefulness,  the 
work  of  a faithful  Pastor.  The  contents  of  his  reports 
are  much  like  this  : — 

Newbury , N.  England , 24  March , 1760. 

Dear  Doctor, 

Since  my  last  I have  baptized  only  three  Infants  & re- 
ceived one  new  Communicant,  a person  of  very  good  char- 
acter. I have  the  pleasure  of  informing  the  Society  that 
there  is  a good  prospect  of  the  Church’s  increasing  here, 
several  of  the  Dissenters  of  repute  and  substance  having  of 
late  very  constantly  attended  our  publick  worship.  I have 
drawn  for  my  last  half  year’s  salary,  which  please  to  order 
paid,  and  you’ll  oblige 

Yr  most  obedt  humble  Servt 

Edward  Bass. 

To  the  Rev’d  Dr  Bearcroft, 

At  the  Charter-house,  London. 


20 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


We  catch  sight  of  his  missionary  spirit,  in  his  ap- 
peals for  aid  and  books  in  behalf  of  the  struggling 
Mission  at  Amesbury.  Then  we  follow  him  up  into 
the  back  country  at  Hopkinton,  the  summer  resort  of 
a few  wealthy  citizens  of  Boston,  where  dwelt  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Price,  Commissary  of  the  Bishop  of  London. 

H is  relations  with  the  other  Ministers  of  the  town 
and  their  congregations  were  always  pleasant.  His 
patience  was  ruffled  at  times,  as  for  instance  when 
the  Congregationalists  broke  into  old  Queen  Anne’s 
Chapel,  now  almost  disused,  and,  in  spite  of  his  pro- 
tests, held  service  there  until  driven  forth  by  the 
authorities. 

“ Methodism  prevails  much  among  us,”  he  reports 
to  the  Society,  “ more,  I believe,  than  in  any  other 
town  in  the  country.  That  enthusiastick  spirit  is  lately 
revived  to  an  uncommon  degree,  and  appears  in  a 
manner  almost  incredible  ; religious  meetings  are  fre- 
quent, mostly  in  the  night,  at  which  ye  people,  not 
only  grown  persons  of  both  sexes,  but  even  little  chil- 
dren, cry  out,  utter  very  strange  (some  that  have  been 
present  say  blasphemous)  expressions,  and  fall  into 
raptures  and  trances.  None  of  my  church  are  at  all 
infected  with  these  things.”  When,  however,  the  great 
preacher,  Whitefield,  came  back  to  Newburyport  to  die, 
Mr.  Bass  was  selected  as  one  of  the  six  pall-bearers, 
and  in  that  office  he  conducted  the  remains  to  their 
last  resting  place  under  the  pulpit  of  the  First  Presby- 
terian Meeting  House. 


Historical  Discourse. 


21 


In  spite,  however,  of  the  kindly  personal  relations 
between  many  Presbyterians  and  Churchmen,  there  was 
a lurking  suspicion  of  the  Church  of  England,  which 
occasionally  broke  forth  into  most  violent  hostility. 

In  1763  a Harvard  classmate  of  Mr.  Bass,  Dr. 
Jonathan  Mayhew,  Pastor  of  the  West  Church  in  Bos- 
ton, published  a virulent  pamphlet  against  the  Church 
and  her  intrusion  into  the  Colonies,  awakening  in  the 
people  the  latent  hatred  of  the  Lord  Bishops  and  the 
Hierarchy.  He  was  answered  by  the  Rev.  East  Ap- 
thorp,  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  Cambridge.  Letters 
and  pamphlets  flew  thick  and  fast.  Mr.  Bass  wrote 
again  and  again  to  England  for  books  with  which  to 
fortify  himself  against  the  Dissenters.  The  contro- 
versy reached  such  importance  as  to  call  forth  a strong 
pamphlet  from  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Dr. 
Seeker.  Naturally,  such  skirmishes  led  to  the  stronger 
marshalling  of  the  forces,  so  that  we  are  not  surprised 
to  find  the  Clergy  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  reaching 
out  to  each  other  and  drawing  into  closer  relations. 

In  June,  1766,  Mr.  Bass  attended  the  first  annual 
Convention  of  the  Clergy  of  Massachusetts  at  King’s 
Chapel,  Boston.  “ We  met,  14  in  number,”  wrote  one 
of  them,  “and  made  something  of  an  appearance  for 
this  country,  when  we  walked  together  in  our  Gowns 
and  Cassocks  ....  and  we  were  honored  by  the  Gov- 
ernor’s Company  at  Dinner.” 

Their  discussions  turned  upon  the  need  of  a Bishop. 
The  next  year  there  went  from  the  Convention  to  the 


22 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


Venerable  Society  a strong  letter,  representing  the 
conditions  of  the  Churches  and  their  hardships.  “ It 
is,  however,”  they  wrote,  “ a great  discouragement  to 
those  who  would  offer  themselves  to  the  service  of 
these  American  Churches  that  they  are  still  obliged  to 
submit  to  the  danger  and  expense  of  a voyage  1000 
leagues  long,  to  qualify  themselves  for  that  service.” 
“ Since  the  first  settlement  of  Christianity  so  large  a 
Continent  as  this  was  never  known  without  a Resident 
Bishop  ....  We  are  too  remote  and  inconsiderable  to 
approach  the  throne,  yet  could  his  Majesty  hear  the 
voice  of  so  distant  a people,  the  request  for  American 
Bishops  would  appear  to  be  the  crye  of  many  thou- 
sands of  His  most  faithful  subjects.” 

The  Church  of  England,  however,  was  indifferent  or 
deaf  to  the  appeal.  The  Ministry,  already  conscious  of 
threatening  disturbances  and  knowing  the  hostility  of 
the  American  people  to  Bishops,  no  doubt  discouraged 
any  movement  which  might  increase  their  difficulties. 
To  the  American  mind  a resident  Bishop  involved 
taxes  for  his  support,  a spiritual  court,  a palace,  and 
even  an  established  Church.  Such  a prejudice  was 
easily  played  upon  ; and  politicians  in  America  could 
use  it  in  order  to  incite  the  people  against  the  Govern- 
ment. Indeed,  in  1772,  Samuel  Adams  received  word 
from  Elbridge  Gerry,  “ It  may  not  be  amiss  to  hit  at 
the  Church  innovations,  and  the  establishment  of  those 
tyrants  in  religion  — Bishops.”  Samuel  Adams  took 
the  hint. 


Historical  Discourse. 


23 


The  subject  so  important  to  the  Churchmen  was, 
however,  but  an  incident  in  the  great  questions  now 
before  the  people.  The  Colonies  were  moving  rapidly 
into  the  War  of  the  Revolution.  To  a commercial 
town  like  Newburyport,  war  with  England  meant  disas- 
ter to  business.  The  issue,  however,  was  deeper  than 
that,  and  the  richest  joined  with  the  body  of  the  people 
in  upholding  the  cause  of  the  Colonies. 

News  of  Concord  and  Lexington,  and  then  of  Bun- 
ker Hill,  reached  the  town.  The  wharves  were  busy 
with  strange  work.  Privateers  were  fitted  out,  guns 
hauled  down  to  the  ships,  and  sailors  were  volunteer- 
ing for  the  service.  In  September,  Benedict  Arnold, 
at  the  head  of  ten  or  twelve  hundred  men,  marched 
down  the  broad  street  to  the  docks,  where  they  em- 
barked on  ten  transports  for  the  capture  of  Quebec. 

Strange  emotions  must  have  swept  over  Edward 
Bass,  and  his  conversations  with  his  wife  and  Wardens 
must  have  been  serious,  for  he  stood  in  a unique  posi- 
tion in  the  community.  He,  like  the  other  citizens, 
was  a subject  of  the  King.  Under  injustice,  he,  like 
them,  might  claim  the  right  of  an  Englishman  to  pro- 
test, and  even  resist.  But  another  bond  held  Mr. 
Bass.  He  was  a Clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England  ; 
he  had  received  his  Orders  from  the  Church,  and  in 
return  had  given  his  solemn  promise  of  conformity ; he 
too,  was  commissioned  and  partially  supported  by  the 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  and  he  was 
under  obligations  to  them. 


24 


Bishop  Lawrence s 


It  would  have  been  comparatively  easy  for  him  to 
have  embarked  with  the  other  Clergy  for  England,  or 
Nova  Scotia,  and  wait  the  turn  of  affairs.  They  were 
most  of  them  natives  of  England,  and  had  been  in  this 
country  but  a few  years,  or  even  months.  He,  how- 
ever, was  a Massachusetts  man.  He  had  his  duty  to 
his  own  countrymen.  Moreover,  he  was  the  Pastor  of 
a people.  He  had  no  right  to  leave  his  flock  without 
a shepherd.  His  common  sense,  courage  and  prudence 
came  to  his  aid.  He  would  stand  by  his  pastoral  work, 
take  sides  with  neither  political  party,  conduct  the  ser- 
vices of  the  Church,  and  let  the  events  move  on.  To 
this  line  of  action  he  was  consistent.  Such  a middle 
course  always  has  its  dangers,  and  Mr.  Bass  did  not 
escape  them.  By  the  patriots  he  was  called  a Tory, 
and  when  returning  home  with  his  wife  one  evening  he 
was  insulted  and  mobbed  by  a crowd  of  men  and  boys. 
His  treatment  from  the  other  side  was,  however,  far 
more  severe. 

Ten  days  after  Independence  was  declared  the  War- 
dens of  St.  Paul’s  wrote  to  Mr.  Bass:  “The  repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  Colonies  in  America  having  in 
Congress  declared  said  Colonies  free  and  independent 
States,  and  disavowed  all  allegiance  to  the  King  of 
Great  Britain,  and  the  Service  of  the  Churches  to  which 
we  belong  prescribing  certain  prayers,  and  so  forth,  to 
be  used  for  said  King  and  his  government,  we  find 
ourselves  under  the  necessity  of  requesting  you  to 
omit,  in  your  use  of  the  Service,  all  prayers,  collects, 


Historical  Discourse. 


25 


or  suffrages  which  relate  to  the  King,  royal  family,  or 
government  of  Great  Britain,  both  as  we  would  avoid 
very  great  inconsistency,  and  as  we  value  the  welfare 
of  the  Church,  being  assured  that  without  such 
omission  the  existence  thereof  would  immediately 
cease.” 

Believing  that  this  action  was  necessary  to  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Church,  Mr.  Bass  complied  with  the 
request.  He  also  opened  the  Church  on  days  of  Pub- 
lic Fasts  and  Thanksgiving,  and,  on  one  occasion, 
preached  a charity  sermon  and  took  up  a contribution 
for  the  poor  of  the  town,  including  some  of  the  wives 
and  children  of  Continental  soldiers.  With  these  ex- 
ceptions, he  continued  in  the  work  and  service  of  the 
Church  as  before  the  war,  observing,  no  doubt,  great 
discretion  in  his  conversation,  that  he  might  not  offend 
his  fellow-citizens. 

Refugees  from  Massachusetts  had,  however,  reached 
London,  and  with  them  came  to  the  Board  of  Man- 
agers of  the  Venerable  Society,  rumors  and  even  cer- 
tified informations  of  the  disloyalty  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Bass  to  the  Royal  government.  Accusations  were 
made  that  he  had  read  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence in  Church  ; that  as  Chaplain  of  a British  regi- 
ment, he  had  tried  to  seduce  the  soldiers  to  the  Rebel 
cause  ; that  he  was  part  owner  in  a privateer  ; that  he 
took  up  a collection  for  Continental  soldiers,  and  that 
he  kept  the  Fasts  and  Feasts  appointed  by  Congress. 
Ignorant  that  these  charges  had  been  made,  Mr,  Bass 


26 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


was  surprised  when  he  learned  that  his  stipend  had 
been  cut  off,  and  that  he  was  no  longer  a recognized 
Missionary  of  the  Society. 

The  fact  that  he  was  dismissed  without  knowledge 
of  the  charges,  or  opportunity  to  answer  them,  roused 
his  indignation,  and  the  loss  of  his  stipend  came  as  a 
real  hardship  in  the  trying  months  of  the  Revolution. 
A subscription  list  tells  us  that  some  members  of  his 
Parish  generously  came  to  his  aid.  The  knowledge, 
however,  that  Clergymen  who  had  fled  from  their  posts, 
now  living  in  safety  in  London  and  Nova  Scotia,  were 
poisoning  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  Society, 
harassed  him.  Letters  now  poured  in  to  the  officers 
of  the  Venerable  Society  from  the  friends  of  Mr.  Bass, 
his  Wardens,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Parker  of  Trinity  Church, 
Boston,  Dr.  Walter  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York,  and 
public  men,  attesting  the  discreet  and  loyal  character 
of  Mr.  Bass.  By  the  courtesy  of  the  Society,  we  have 
the  full  records  and  correspondence,  which  will  be  pub- 
lished in  the  “ Life  of  Bishop  Bass,”  by  the  Rev.  Dan- 
iel Dulany  Addison,  to  whom  I have  been  under  great 
obligations  in  the  preparation  of  this  Address. 

It  is  interesting  to  follow  the  action  on  both  sides  ; 
to  see  how,  in  the  early  heat  of  the  war,  the  Society 
not  unnaturally  acted  on  ill-founded  report  and  hear- 
say ; and  how,  when  the  request  came  before  them 
again  and  again  to  rescind  their  action,  they  evidently 
questioned  whether  they  had  not  acted  hastily.  To 
the  end,  however,  they  were  unwilling  to  recall  their 


Historical  Discourse. 


2 7 


vote.  We  can  imagine  the  little  company  in  Furnival’s 
Inn  Court  listening  to  the  Secretary,  as  he  read  the 
indignant  letters  of  Mr.  Bass,  asking  for  definite 
charges.  After  quoting  some  rumors  that  had  reached 
him,  he  breaks  forth  : “ This  is  as  false  as  God  is  true. 
I find  that  I have  secret  enemies  (God  knows  how 
they  came  to  be  so)  who  are  set  upon  ruining  my  char- 
acter and  reputation  with  those  upon  whose  good 
opinion  I set  the  highest  value.  I am  sorry  to  trouble 
you  with  any  more  of  my  letters,  but  cannot  help 
observing  to  you  the  singularity  of  my  Fate  in  being  a 
sufferer  on  both  sides,  here  for  my  Loyalty,  with  you 
for  the  Contrary,  without  being  a Trimmer.  When 
the  late  rebellion  commenced,  I preserved  as  firm  & 
unshaken  loyalty  to  his  Majesty,  & attachment  to  the 
British  Government,  as  was  consistent  with  my  remain- 
ing in  the  country,  whereof  I have  given  to  the  Society 
all  the  proof  that  I thought  to  be  requisite,  having 
exhibited  ample  testimonials  in  my  favour,  not  only 
from  my  Wardens,  but  also  from  some  of  the  most 
respectable  characters  & noted  Loyalists  in  the  Capital 
of  Newhampshire  about  twenty  miles  distant  from  me, 
who,  without  any  solicitation  of  mine,  made  me  a vol- 
untary tender  of  their  Service,  not  to  mention  the 
testimony  of  Sundry  refugee  Loyalists  now  in  London, 
who  resided  in  this  town  & perfectly  knew  my  charac- 
ter & conduct.  Notwithstanding  which  the  Society 
has  thought  proper  to  distinguish  me  by  uncommon 
marks  of  neglect  & displeasure.”  “ That  they  should 


28 


Bishop  Lawrences 


dis-card  a Missionary  upon  an  Allegation  of  misde- 
meanor, a Missionary  of  long  standing,  depending  upon 
their  salary,  & daily  incurring  expenses  upon  a full 
expectation  of  continuing  to  receive  it,  without  giving 
him  the  least  Notice,  or  any  chance  of  vindicating  him- 
self, is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  an  unexampled  method 
of  proceeding,  & such  as  must  imply  some  very  atro- 
cious crime  fully  proved.  I must  beg  it  of  the  Society 
either  to  let  me  know  what  proof  of  my  innocence  will 
be  sufficient,  or  that  no  proof  whatever  will  avail  me  ; 
or,  if  they  refuse  me  this,  at  least  to  do  me  the 
common  act  of  justice  to  let  me  know  who  are  my 
Accusers,  & what  the  nature  of  my  crime  or  crimes, 
for  whatever  becomes  of  my  Living,  I am  determined 
to  clear  up  my  character  in  point  of  Loyalty  to  my 
late  Sovereign.” 

Unfortunately  the  Society  never  informed  him  of 
the  charges ; as  their  vote  runs,  they  saw  “ no  reason 
to  re-scind  their  first  resolution,”  so  that  Mr.  Bass  had 
to  content  himself  with  the  publication  in  London  of  a 
pamphlet  defending  his  loyalty  and  character. 

Amidst  the  distractions  and  privations  of  war,  Mr. 
Bass  continued  his  pastoral  work.  As  Mr.  Parker,  of 
Trinity  Church,  Boston,  was  the  only  other  Episcopal 
Clergyman  in  Massachusetts,  they  each  had  many 
added  duties  in  connection  with  other  Parishes.  Mr. 
Bass,  for  instance,  wrote  to  the  Society,  “ having 
return’d  from  a journey  of  about  a hundred  miles  into 
the  Province  of  New  Hampshire,  . . . [where]  I bap- 


Historical  Discourse. 


29 


tized  about  sixty  children  and  Adult  Persons,  near  half 
the  number  at  Holderness.” 

The  end  of  the  War  brought  new  and  great  prob- 
lems to  the  Episcopal  Church,  as  well  as  to  the 
country.  For  the  Church,  being  in  theory  and  tradi- 
tion episcopal,  national,  and  of  strong  organization,  it 
was  in  fact,  by  the  necessity  of  the  times,  almost  con- 
gregational, scattered  throughout  the  thirteen  States, 
disorganized. 

It  is  a popular  impression  that  the  Episcopal 
Church  was  only  a Church  of  the  Tories,  and  that,  on 
that  account,  there  was  nothing  left  of  it  at  the  close 
of  the  War.  While  it  is  true  that  a large  proportion 
of  the  Clergy,  being  English  by  birth  and  education, 
were  Tory,  and  that  it  was  the  Church  of  his  Majesty’s 
officials,  it  is  no  less  true  that  a good  fraction  of  the 
Clergy  were  Americans  ; and  that,  though  generally 
cautious  in  their  action  during  the  War,  they  were,  as 
soon  as  the  Treaty  of  Peace  was  declared,  quick  to 
take  up  their  duties  as  citizens  of  the  States,  and  to 
lead  the  Church  into  sympathy  with  the  new  conditions. 

Many  laymen  and  their  families,  in  company  with  a 
number  from  Congregational  and  other  Churches,  fled 
the  country.  This,  however,  is  also  true, — that  as  a 
body,  throughout  the  land,  especially  at  the  South,  the 
laymen  were  devoted  to  the  American  cause.  When 
we  remember  that  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  a large  fraction  were  attached  to  the 
Episcopal  Church,  as  were  Washington,  Alexander 


30 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


Hamilton,  Gouverneur  Morris,  Marshall,  Madison,  Pat- 
rick Henry,  and  others,  and  that  the  first  Chaplain  of 
the  Continental  Congress,  the  Rev.  Dr.  White,  was  the 
first  Bishop  through  the  English  succession,  we  recog- 
nize a reason  why  the  Church  was  so  quick  to  organize 
on  lines  that  were  distinctly  American. 

And  in  Massachusetts,  too,  as  the  action  of  the 
Wardens  of  St.  Paul’s,  Newburyport,  showed,  the  offi- 
cers and  people  of  the  Churches  sympathized  with  the 
patriots.  In  the  Church  at  Newburyport,  for  instance, 
were  Captains  Thomas  and  Nicholas  Tracy,  owners  and 
commanders  of  some  of  the  most  successful  privateers ; 
John  Tracy,  aide-de-camp  to  General  Glover ; Tristram 
Dalton,  Senator  to  Congress  from  Massachusetts ; 
Rufus  King,  Senator  from  New  York,  and  twice  Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary  to  the  Court  of  St.  James  ; and 
other  strong  patriots. 

The  Episcopal  Churches  without  a Bishop,  with  no 
organic  or  national  unity,  and  with  a Prayer  Book 
which  not  only  required  prayers  for  the  King  and  the 
success  of  his  armies,  but  was  in  some  other  respects 
not  acceptable  to  the  American  Churchmen,  had  before 
them  three  problems — the  obtaining  of  Bishops,  the 
national  organization  of  the  Churches,  and  the  adop- 
tion of  an  amended  Prayer  Book. 

We  have  time  to  consider  these  questions  only  so 
far  as  they  touch  and  reveal  the  character  and  position 
of  Mr.  Bass. 


Historical  Discourse. 


3i 


After  the  War  the  return  of  two  Clergymen  to 
Massachusetts  and  one  to  Rhode  Island  gave  some 
support  to  the  Reverend  Mr.  Bass  and  the  Reverend 
Mr.  Parker.  But  these  two  were  the  accepted  leaders. 
Mr.  Parker  was  the  younger,  and  had  studied  under 
Mr.  Bass.  As  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  Boston,  he 
was  in  easier  communication  with  distant  cities,  and 
became  the  active  representative  of  Massachusetts  in 
distant  Conventions.  Mr.  Bass  was,  however,  recog- 
nized by  his  age,  judgment,  ripe  experience,  and  con- 
ciliatory temper,  as  the  leading  counsellor  in  the 
Massachusetts  Church,  presiding  at  Conventions  and 
heading  the  list  of  committees.  There  was  remarkable 
unanimity  in  the  sentiment  of  Massachusetts  on  these 
great  questions,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  Mr.  Bass 
sympathized  with  and  had  great  influence  in  the  decis- 
ions of  the  Massachusetts  Conventions. 

I emphasize  this  because  the  impression  has  been 
given  by  historians  of  our  Church  that  Connecticut 
represented  the  Churchmanship  of  all  . New  England, 
and  that  Massachusetts  simply  followed  Connecticut’s 
lead ; whereas,  it  is  clear  that  from  the  first  there  was  a 
temper  and  character  to  Massachusetts  which  was  its 
own,  clear,  strong,  and  persistent. 

In  the  matter  of  obtaining  a Bishop,  there  was,  as 
we  well  know,  a marked  difference  of  opinion  between 
Connecticut  and  Philadelphia.  Connecticut  felt  that 
before  a single  move  was  made  towards  national 
organization,  the  Episcopal  Church  should  have  a head, 


32 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


a Bishop.  They,  therefore,  set  about  very  quietly  to 
elect  as  Bishop  the  Reverend  Samuel  Seabury,  who 
immediately  sailed  for  England,  and,  being  refused 
Consecration  through  the  English  Succession,  was  con- 
secrated in  Scotland.  Meanwhile  the  Churches  in  the 
South,  as  represented  in  Philadelphia,  influenced  no 
doubt  by  their  close  association  with  the  statesmen  of 
the  country,  had  been  moving  towards  confederation. 
The  question  of  a Bishop  was  held  in  abeyance.  In 
view  of  the  practical  impossibility,  as  it  was  then 
thought,  of  obtaining  a Bishop  through  the  English 
Succession,  Dr.  White  had  even  suggested  the  creation 
of  Bishops  until  the  Succession  could  be  had ; a sugges- 
tion which  he  withdrew  as  soon  as  there  was  a reason- 
able chance  of  the  English  Succession. 

In  1784  Mr.  Bass  wrote  to  Mr.  Parker  a letter, 
which  states  his  position  so  clearly,  that  I shall  quote 
at  length : — 

Newburyport , yune  21,  1784. 

Dear  Sir  : 

I have  received  yrs  of  the  15th  inst.,  enclosing  the  min- 
utes of  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  and  their  design  appears 
to  me  to  be  very  good,  not  to  say  very  important,  viz.,  the 
continuance  and  preservation  of  uniformity  among  the  Epis- 
copal Churches,  at  least  from  their  State  to  the  Northern 
extremity  of  the  United  States.  I fully  agree  with  them 
that  the  authority  to  make  canons  or  laws  should  be  placed 
in  a representative  body  of  Clergy  and  laity  conjointly,  and 
hope  that  in  due  time  a suitable  place  for  their  Meeting  will 
be  appointed.  That  the  service  and  discipline  of  our  Church 
are  capable  of  improvement  will,  I apprehend,  be  denied  by 


Historical  Discourse. 


33 


few  of  her  intelligent  members  ; and  such  improvement  or 
amendment  may  without  doubt  be  more  easily  effected  now 
than  heretofore  when  we  were  connected  with  Great  Britain. 
But  still  reformation  of  almost  any  kind  is  a nice  and  delicate 
affair,  and  not  to  be  touch’d  or  attempted  by  rough  hands. 
I also  look  upon  it  to  be  highly  expedient  that  proper  collects 
be  made  for  the  Government  we  live  under.  You  propose  a 
meeting  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy  of  this  State, — Jubes  reno- 
vare  dolor em  ! Alas  ! to  what  are  we  reduced  ! I know 
of  but  four,  two  in  Boston,  one  in  Salem,  and  yr  humble 
servt-  If  then  we  should  meet,  Salem  I think  would  be  the 
proper  place,  and  why  should  not  a respectable  Layman  of 
each  Church  meet  with  us  ? After  all,  I cannot  help  think- 
ing it  would  be  proper  to  wait  for  the  arrival  of  our  Bishop 
before  we  proceed  to  any  ecclesiastical  consultations  of  im- 
portance, that  we  may  have  his  concuring  voice  in  such 
matters.  According  to  the  account  I have  had  from  you  we 
might  have  expected  the  arrival  of  such  a person  before  this 
time.  Pray,  what  is  become  of  him  ? (Mr.  Seabury,  I think 
you  told  me,  was  the  man  who  went  to  England  last  year  for 
consecration.)  What  hath  been  his  success  ? Is  anything 
like  to  be  done  towards  the  regular  continuance  of  our  Suc- 
cession, for  I hope  Messers  White  and  Brethren  have  it  not 
in  contemplation  to  constitute  their  three  Orders  de  novo . ... 

Yr-  Affectionate  Brothr-  and  humble  Serv’b 

Edward  Bass. 

Here  you  notice  that  Mr.  Bass  sympathized  with 
Connecticut  in  a desire  for  a Bishop  as  the  first  step. 
In  this  he  expressed  the  feeling  of  Massachusetts,  for 
in  September,  1784,  the  Clergy  of  Massachusetts  and 
Rhode  Island  held  their  first  annual  Meeting,  seven 
being  present,  and  a set  of  resolutions  was  passed, 


34 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


which,  with  a circular  letter,  was  sent  to  leading  Cler- 
gymen throughout  the  country.  In  their  letter  they 
say : “ But  it  is  our  unanimous  opinion  that  it  is  begin- 
ning at  the  wrong  end  to  attempt  to  organize  our 

Church  before  we  have  obtained  a head It  is 

needless  to  represent  to  you  the  absolute  Necessity  of 
adopting  and  uniting  in  some  speedy  measures  to  pro- 
cure some  reputable  Person  who  is  regularly  invested 
with  the  Powers  of  Ordination,  etc.,  to  reside  among 
us,  without  which  scarce  the  Shadow  of  an  Episcopal 
Church  will  soon  remain  in  these  States  ....  As  to 
the  mode  of  obtaining  what  we  stand  in  such  need  of, 
we  wish  above  all  things  to  procure  it  in  the  most 
regular  manner,  & particularly  from  our  mother  Church 
in  England.” 

Thus  far  we  have  seen  Massachusetts  in  agreement 
with  Connecticut,  and  not  in  sympathy  with  the  feeling 
in  Philadelphia  on  this  point. 

When,  however,  we  turn  to  the  question  of  organ- 
ization, and  especially  to  the  mode  of  representation, 
we  find  Massachusetts  turning  away  from  Connecticut, 
expressing  in  strong  terms  her  sympathy  with  that 
great  and  statesmanlike  step  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
taken  under  the  leadership  of  that  great  man,  the  Rev. 
William  White  ; namely,  the  representation  of  the  Laity 
in  Ecclesiastical  Councils.  Said  Seabury  of  Connec- 
ticut : “ I cannot  give  up  what  I deem  essential  to 
Episcopal  Government,  by  admitting  laymen  into  any 
share  of  it,  farther  than  the  external  or  temporal  state 


Historical  Discourse. 


35 


of  things  may  require.  To  subject  a Bishop  to  the 
censure  of  a Consistory  of  Presbyters  and  Laymen, 
even  with  a Bishop  at  their  head,  I cannot  consent. 
From  that  thraldom  the  Church  in  Connecticut  must, 
if  it  please  God,  be  preserved.” 1 Wrote  Bass,  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, as  I have  already  quoted  : “ The  authority 
to  make  canons  or  laws  should  be  placed  in  a repre- 
sentative body  of  Clergy  and  Laity  conjointly.”  And 
one  of  the  resolutions  of  the  Massachusetts  Clergy 
was : “ That  the  power  of  making  Canons  and  Laws  be 
invested  solely  in  a representative  body  of  the  Clergy 
and  Laity  conjointly  ” 

The  contrast  might  be  further  emphasized.  At  the 
Convention  of  Connecticut  Clergy  in  Middletown,  to 
welcome  Bishop  Seabury,  Dr.  Parker  was  in  attend- 
ance, by  invitation,  as  well  as  at  the  written  request  of 
Messrs.  Bass  and  Fisher,  and  at  his  request  a few 
changes  in  the  Prayer  Book  were  made.  As  soon, 
however,  as  they  were  made  public,  Bishop  Seabury 
wrote  to  Dr.  Parker : “ It  was  found  that  the  Church 
people  in  Connecticut  were  much  alarmed  at  the 
thought  of  any  considerable  alterations  being  made  in 
the  Prayer  Book ; and,  upon  the  whole,  it  was  judged 
best  that  no  alterations  should  be  attempted  at 
present.” 

The  Massachusetts  Convention,  however,  which 
soon  followed  in  September,  1785,  was  composed  not 


1 Beardsley’s  History  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut,  Vol.  I,  p.  401. 


36 


Bishop  Lawrence s 


only  of  Clergy,  as  in  Connecticut,  but  of  Laity  as 
well, — in  fact,  there  were  ten  laymen  and  four  Clergy- 
men— and  radical  alterations  in  the  Prayer  Book  were 
then  passed,  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  met  the  approval 
of  the  Churchmen  of  this  Diocese. 

As  to  the  changes  in  the  Prayer  Book,  we  have  Mr. 
Bass’s  opinion  in  his  own  words.  Besides  favoring  the 
changes  caused  by  political  independence,  he  thought 
they  “ might  part  with  the  Athanasian  Creed,  one  or 
two  Lord’s  Prayers,  and  leave  the  use  of  sponsors  to 
the  option  of  those  who  have  children  to  christen.” 

He  added : “ We  ought  to  have  a code  of  Church 
Laws  or  Canons,  plain  and  simple.  Some  power 
should  be  given  to  the  Bishop  or  Bishops,  but  our 
Dernier  resort  must  be  in  a general  Council,  which 
should  be  supream  and  have  the  power  of  censuring  or 
depriving  Bishops,  as  there  may  be  occasion.” 

At  the  Massachusetts  Convention  of  1785,  of  which 
Mr.  Bass  was  the  President,  alterations  in  the  Prayer 
Book  which  had  been  voted  by  the  Connecticut  Con- 
vention were  considered,  and  much  more  radical 
changes  were  passed.  The  Athanasian  Creed  was 
omitted ; any  congregation  was  given  the  right  to  use 
or  to  omit  as  it  saw  fit,  the  Nicene  Creed  ; parents  were 
permitted  to  become  sponsors  of  their  children  ; the 
phrase,  “ All  men  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin,”  was 
omitted,  as  were  also  parts  of  the  Litany ; the  sign  of 
the  Cross  in  Baptism  was  made  discretionary ; the 
Absolution  in  the  Office  of  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick 


Historical  Discourse. 


37 


was  expunged,  the  Absolution  in  the  Communion 
Office  being  used  in  its  stead,  if  necessary ; it  was 
declared  immaterial  whether  the  Communion  Service 
was  read  “ in  the  Reading  Desk  or  in  the  Altar/’  and 
other  less  important  changes  were  made. 

Although  these  changes  were  not  to  go  into  effect 
until  it  was  learned  how  far  the  other  States  would 
“ conform  to  said  alterations,”  these  resolutions  of  the 
Massachusetts  Convention  suggest  the  trend  of 
thought  here,  and  show  that  the  Massachusetts 
Churchmen  had  convictions  of  their  own. 

Dr.  Seabury  was  consecrated  in  Scotland  in  1 784  ; 
Doctors  White  and  Provoost  in  London  in  1 787.  The 
General  Convention  which  united  the  Churches  of  the 
United  States  was  held  in  Philadelphia,  July  28th,  1789. 
These  were  critical  years  for  the  Church.  The  doubt 
expressed  by  some  New  York  and  Southern  Clergy- 
men as  to  the  validity  or  recognition  of  Bishop  Sea- 
bury’s  Orders ; the  suspicion  in  Connecticut  of  the 
methods  of  the  New  York  and  Philadelphia  men  ; the 
lack  of  sympathy  on  the  part  of  Bishop  Seabury  with 
lay  representation  and  some  other  American  princi- 
ples, and  the  slow  communication  between  different 
parts  of  the  country,  conspired  to  make  the  consolida- 
tion of  the  Churches  a most  difficult  and  hazardous 
task.  In  all  the  negotiations  the  wisdom,  charity  and 
statesmanship  of  Bishop  White  are  conspicuous. 

Massachusetts  again  adopted  her  own  line  of  policy ; 
and,  considering  the  small  number  of  her  Clergy  and 


38 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


her  distance  from  the  scene  of  action,  played  an  im- 
portant part.  Messrs.  Bass  and  Parker  had  no  sym- 
pathy with  the  neglect  of  Bishop  Seabury  by  the  New 
York  and  Southern  men  and  their  Conventions.  Mr. 
Bass  called  such  behavior  “ a disrespect  to  and  con- 
tempt of  the  Episcopal  Order.”  He  waxes  warm  in 
his  indignation.  “ Wiseacres,”  he  writes,  “ what  a 
ridiculous  figure  must  they  make  in  the  eyes  of  every 
Sectary  or  anti-Episcopalian  ! In  the  name  of  wonder, 
what  objection  can  be  raised  against  the  validity  of  Dr. 
Seabury’s  ordinations,  that  may  not  as  well  be  made 
against  those  of  the  English  Bishops  ? ” 1 At  the  same 
time,  when  Bishop  Seabury  refused  to  preach  before 
the  Boston  Episcopal  Charitable  Society,  because  of 
certain  changes  which  Massachusetts  had  made  in  the 
Prayer  Book,  the  men  of  this  Diocese,  while  court- 
eously expressing  their  regret,  held  firm  to  their 
position. 

Connecticut  would  like  to  have  had  Massachusetts 
send  a man  to  Scotland  for  Consecration,  and  thus 
commit  New  England  to  the  Scottish  Orders.  Bishop 
White  suggested  that  Massachusetts  should  send  a man 
to  England  for  Consecration,  and  thus  complete  the 
three  Bishops  in  English  Orders  in  this  country,  and 
do  away  with  the  necessity  of  Bishop  Seabury  in  the 
Consecration  of  a fourth  Bishop.  The  union  of  the 
Churches  in  the  United  States,  and  not  the  exclusion 


i Hist.  Notes  and  Documents,  p.  325. 


Historical  Discourse . 


39 


of  either  Succession,  was  the  aim  of  Massachusetts  ; 
and  she,  with  New  Hampshire,  showed  skill  and  charity 
in  its  accomplishment. 

The  General  Convention  of  1789,  in  which  the 
question  of  unity  would  come  up,  was  drawing  near. 
On  June  4,  1789,  the  Clergy  of  Massachusetts,  five  in 
number,  with  one  from  New  Hampshire,  met,  without 
the  laity,  very  quietly  in  Salem,  and  elected  the  Rev- 
erend Edward  Bass  as  Bishop,  in  order,  as  their  act 
read,  “to  encourage  and  promote,  as  far  as  in  us  lies, 
a union  of  the  whole  Episcopal  Church  in  these  States, 
and  to  perfect  and  compact  this  mystical  body  of 
Christ.”  They  addressed  “ the  right  reverend  the 
Bishops  in  the  States  of  Connecticut,  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania,  praying  their  assistance  in  consecrating  ” 
Mr.  Bass.  “This  request,”  they  add,  “we  are  induced 
to  make,  from  a long  acquaintance  with  him,  and  of  a 
perfect  knowledge  of  his  being  possessed  of  that  love 
of  God  and  benevolence  to  men,  that  piety,  learning, 
and  good  morals,  that  prudence  and  discretion,  requi- 
site to  so  exalted  a station,  as  well  as  that  personal 
respect  and  attachment  of  the  Communion  at  large  in 
these  States,  which  will  make  him  a valuable  acquisi- 
tion to  the  Order,  and,  we  trust,  a rich  blessing  to  the 
Church.” 

The  Rev.  Samuel  Parker  was  authorized  and  em- 
powered to  transmit  copies  of  the  Act  of  this  Conven- 
tion to  the  three  Bishops,  to  appear  at  the  General 
Convention,  and  “ to  treat  upon  any  measures  that 


40 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


may  tend  to  promote  a union  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
throughout  the  United  States  of  America.”  1 That  the 
laity  of  Massachusetts  should  not  have  been  invited  to 
this  Convention,  and  should  have  been  kept  in  igno- 
rance of  it,  is  remarkable.  It  is  not  clear  why  the 
Clergy  took  this  high-handed  method  of  electing  a 
Bishop.  It  may  have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  they 
felt  by  quiet  and  united  action  they  could  best  accom- 
plish their  purposes ; possibly,  they  knew  that  Bishop 
Seabury  would  not  recognize  the  election  of  a Bishop 
by  laymen ; perhaps  some  of  the  Clergy  themselves 
who  endorsed  lay  representation,  drew  the  line  at  the 
election  of  Bishops. 

The  laity  of  Massachusetts,  or  rather  the  laity  of 
Mr.  Bass’s  Parish,  were  not  to  be  silenced  in  that  way. 
With  all  their  regard  and  affection  for  their  Rector, 
they  felt  that  a principle  was  at  stake.  A meeting  of 
the  Wardens  and  Vestry  of  St.  Paul’s,  Newburyport, 
was  called  “ to  consider  the  Propriety  of  procuring  one 
or  more  Lay  Deputies  ” to  represent  the  Churches  of 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  at  the  General 
Convention. 

An  effort  was  made  to  gather  a laymen’s  Conven- 
tion of  the  Churches  of  these  two  States,  but  this 
movement  received  scant  sympathy  from  the  laymen  of 
the  other  Churches,  and  therefore  failed.  Nothing 
daunted,  the  laymen  of  Newburyport  met  and  elected 


i Journal  of  General  Convention,  1789. 


Historical  Discourse. 


4i 


two  Lay  Deputies  to  represent  the  laymen  of  the 
Churches  of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire.  In 
notifying  the  two  men,  Tristram  Dalton  and  Elbridge 
Gerry,  they  wrote  : — 

“That  the  Clergy  alone  of  our  Church  have  a right  to 
elect  a Bishop,  Whose  authority  shall  extend  over  the  Laity, 
is  a Principle  we  can  by  no  means  accede  to  ; and  from  the 
very  scrupulous  secrecy  observed  by  our  Ministers  upon  this 
occasion,  we  are  led  to  believe  that  it  is  a Principle  they  do 
not  feel  themselves  intirely  founded  in We  find  our- 

selves, therefore,  bound  solemnly  to  protest  against  the  late 
election  at  Salem  being  drawn  into  Precedent  on  any  future 
occasion  ; and  at  the  same  time  we  declare  that  nothing  but 
our  personal  knowledge  of  and  most  intire  esteem  and 
veneration  for  the  Rev’d  Gentleman,  who  was  the  object  of 
that  election,  prevents  our  entering  the  like  Protest  against 
its  validity.” 

There  is  no  evidence  that  these  two  delegates  were 
recognized  by  the  General  Convention,  though  we 
learn  from  Bishop  White  that  they  were  there. 

At  the  Philadelphia  Convention  “ the  Act  of  the 
Clergy  of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire,”  with 
the  request  for  the  Consecration  of  Mr.  Bass  by  the 
three  Bishops,  was  presented.  Resolutions  then 
passed,  affirmed,  “ That  a complete  Order  of  Bishops, 
derived  as  well  under  the  English  as  the  Scots  line  of 
episcopacy,  existed  in  the  United  States ; ” “ that 
Bishops  White  and  Provoost  are  requested  to  unite 
with  Bishop  Seabury  in  consecrating  Rev.  Edward 


42 


Bishop  Lawrence s 


Bass,  as  requested  by  ‘ the  Act  of  the  Clergy  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  New  Hampshire.’  ” 

As  Bishop  White,  who  heartily  approved  of  this 
action,  felt  in  honor  bound  to  consult  the  English 
Archbishops  before  taking  part  in  the  Consecration, 
the  Convention  adjourned  until  September.  At  that 
meeting  Bishop  Seabury  took  his  place,  and  the  union 
of  the  Churches  was  accomplished.  The  University  of 
Pennsylvania  conferred  the  degree  of  Doctor  of 
Divinity  upon  the  Rev.  Edward  Bass. 

The  Consecration  of  Dr.  Bass,  whose  election  had 
led  up  to  this  happy  union,  did  not  take  place.  Whether 
the  delay  had  cooled  the  ardor  of  Massachusetts  Church- 
men for  a Bishop  ; whether  Dr.  Bass’s  sense  of  humility 
and  unfitness  for  the  office,  or  his  lack  of  funds  for  the 
journey,  checked  him,  or  whether  the  fact  of  his  choice 
by  the  Clergy  only  had  created  opposition  among  the 
laity,  we  know  not.  Probably  all  these  elements  had 
an  influence.  It  is  suggestive  that  when,  seven  years 
later,  the  question  of  his  Consecration  arose,  another 
election,  in  which  the  laity  took  part,  was  had. 

May  24,  1796,  at  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  in 
Concert  Hall,  Boston,  Dr.  Bass  was  elected  Bishop. 
Of  the  ten  Clergy  present,  including  the  President, 
Dr.  Bass,  seven  voted  for  him,  as  did  all  six  laymen. 
At  first  he  declined  the  election  ; but  having  considered 
the  critical  situation,  due  to  altercations  and  differences 
of  opinion  in  the  Convention,  he  wrote  : “ I think  my- 
self bound  in  duty  to  acquiesce,  and  to  make  a begin- 


Historical  Discourse. 


43 


ning  in  this  business,  which  it  is  probable,  according  to 
the  course  of  nature,  I shall  shortly  quit,  and  leave  the 
election  of  a Successor  more  easy.” 

At  a special  meeting  of  the  Diocesan  Convention, 
held  in  September,  1 796,  his  letter  of  acceptance  was 
read.  He  asked  for  credentials  and  “ the  unum  neces- 
sarium  for  travelling.”  A committee  was  appointed 
to  procure  the  sum  of  $200  by  subscription,  to  defray 
the  expenses  of  his  journey.  Delays  in  correspond- 
ence, and  in  the  preparation  of  the  official  papers,  as 
well  as  the  difficulty  in  bringing  three  Bishops  together, 
postponed  the  Consecration  until  May  7,  1797.  On 
that  day,  in  the  historic  Christ  Church,  Philadelphia, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Bass  was  consecrated  by  Bishops  White, 
Provoost,  and  Claggett. 

May  30th,  1797,  was  an  eventful  day  in  the  history 
of  the  Church  in  Massachusetts,  for  as  that  was  the 
first  day  of  the  Annual  Convention  of  the  Diocese, 
held  in  Trinity  Church,  Boston,  the  Bishop  was  to  be 
formally  welcomed.  The  Secretary  of  the  Convention 
thus  reports  the  incident : — “ The  Delegates  being 
seated  in  the  front  pews  in  the  Church,  the  Clergy 
conducted  the  Bishop,  clothed  in  his  Episcopal  robes, 
from  the  Vestry-room  to  the  Altar,  where  he  took  his 
seat  on  the  north  side,  the  Clergy  standing  in  front. 
The  Rev.  Dr.  Parker  ascended  to  the  south  side,  and, 
turning  to  the  Congregation,  read  the  vote  of  the  Con- 
vention at  their  annual  meeting,  1796,  making  choice 
of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Edward  Bass  for  their  Bishop,  and  the 


44 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


Bishop-elect’s  answer.”  He  also  read  the  testimonials 
of  the  Bishops  officiating  at  the  Consecration.  Then 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Walter,  now  returned  from  Nova  Scotia, 
and  Rector  of  Christ  Church,  advanced  within  the 
rails,  receiving  their  first  Bishop,  and  delivered  an 
address,  to  which  the  Bishop  gave  “ an  affectionate 
answer.” 

Thus  quietly  did  a Bishop,  so  long  dreaded  in  this 
Commonwealth,  enter  upon  the  duties  of  his  office. 
He  came,  however,  not  as  a Lord  Bishop,  but  as  the 
shepherd  of  a flock.  Fortunately,  in  temperament  and 
character,  he  had  no  desire  to  emphasize  his  authority, 
or  imitate  the  state  of  English  Bishops.  He  well  real- 
ized what  the  history  of  our  Church  in  this  country  has 
shown  again  and  again,  — that  the  American  people 
have  no  interest  in  a Bishop  who,  assuming  prelatical 
authority,  appeals  to  the  dignity  and  state  of  the  Epis- 
copate in  the  past ; but  that  they  will  give  their  fullest 
confidence  to  an  American  Bishop,  who  in  character, 
spiritual  dignity,  and  humility,  is  the  chief  shepherd  of 
his  flock. 

For  six  years  Bishop  Bass  filled  with  faithfulness, 
good  sense,  and  industry,  the  offices  of  Bishop  of  Mas- 
sachusetts and  Rector  of  St.  Paul’s  Church,  Newbury- 
port.  The  Church  had  not  then  caught  sight  of  the 
modern  Bishop  as  a leader  in  Missionary  enterprises 
and  the  organizer  of  work.  The  strange  appearance 
of  the  lawn  sleeves  was  enough  to  satisfy  the  different 
congregations. 


Historical  Discourse. 


45 


The  territory  of  Bishop  Bass’s  jurisdiction  was  large, 
including  Massachusetts  with  Maine  and  Rhode  Island. 
He  visited  New  Hampshire,  though  it  was  not  until 
1803  that  that  Diocese  formally  asked  him  to  “take 
the  Churches  in  the  State  under  his  Pastoral  Charge.” 
Vermont  made  the  same  request  just  before  his  death. 

His  Episcopal  duties  were,  however,  not  engross- 
ing. He  occasionally  visited  the  different  Parishes  as 
far  as  Bristol,  Rhode  Island,  though  he  never  reached 
the  Berkshire  Churches.  He  presided  at  the  Diocesan 
Conventions  held  in  Boston,  in  Concert  Hall,  Library 
Hall,  or  Trinity  Church.  He  ordained  (as  far  as  we 
know)  nine  men,  of  whom  two,  Dehon  and  Bowen, 
were  later  Bishops  of  South  Carolina.  He  attended 
the  meeting  of  the  General  Convention  held  in  Phila- 
delphia in  1797,  and  met  there  his  brethren  in  the 
Episcopate.  He  assisted,  with  Bishops  White  and 
Provoost,  in  New  Haven,  in  the  Consecration  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Jarvis,  as  the  successor  of  Bishop  Seabury, 
Bishop  of  Connecticut. 

He  consecrated,  in  1789,  St.  Paul’s  Church,  Ded- 
ham, which  had  taken  the  place  of  the  old  Church, 
which  fell  the  year  before. 

Our  thoughts,  as  no  doubt  did  the  Bishop’s,  when 
on  his  Visitations,  habitually  recur  to  his  old  town. 
He  had  returned  home,  and,  with  his  added  dignity, 
preserved  the  same  simplicity.  Once  before  a Bishop 
had  been  in  the  town;  for  in  1792  Mr.  Bass  wrote  of 
a Visitation  by  Bishop  Seabury : “ Last  summer  we 


46 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


had  a high  Sunday  here.  Bishop  Seabury  preached  in 
our  Church,  and  confirmed  an  hundred  and  thirty  or 
forty  persons.  Not  more  than  half  the  people  who 
came  to  Church  could  get  in.” 

About  six  months  after  the  death  of  his  first  wife, 
Dr.  Bass  had  taken  to  himself  another,  Mercy  Phillips, 
who  was  now  his  helpmate.  Clothed  in  a long,  black 
coat,  with  ample  pocket  folds,  small  clothes  and  black 
silk  stockings,  the  Bishop  was  a familiar  figure  on  the 
street.  His  three-cornered  hat  shaded  a round  and 
kindly  face,  which  was  framed  in  a sweep  of  his  long, 
waving  wig.  His  house  was  ever  open  to  guests,  and 
he  was  welcomed  by  his  neighbors  as  a man  full  of 
anecdote,  humor,  courtesy  and  humane  disposition. 
His  friend  and  Warden,  Dudley  A.  Tyng,  at  proper 
intervals  caused  a new  three-cornered  hat  to  appear 
upon  the  peg,  from  which  the  old  one  as  mysteriously 
disappeared. 

As  a preacher  he  was  plain,  practical,  and  full  of 
kindly  exhortations  to  good  conduct,  based  upon  the 
foundations  of  an  evangelical  faith.  He  represented 
our  Church  as  distinctly  a Church  of  order,  dignity  and 
dutiful  love.  A vein  of  humor  ran  through  some  of 
his  sermons,  which  was  more  clearly  revealed  in  his 
social  discourse. 

As  a citizen  he  was  esteemed  by  all.  For  several 
years  we  find  him,  together  with  all  the  other  Ministers 
of  Newburyport,  appointed  a member  of  a Committee 
“ to  visit  the  Schools.”  The  impression  that  one  gains 


Historical  Discourse . 


47 


from  the  various  records  is  that  he,  more  than  any 
Minister  in  the  town,  illustrated  the  humane,  the 
ethical  and  social  features  of  the  Christian  religion. 
With  the  Ministers  of  other  denominations  he  always 
sustained  the  kindest  relations.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Bent- 
ley, Pastor  of  the  East  Meeting  House,  Salem,  and  an 
ardent  patriot,  was  his  close  friend.  A letter  of  four 
lines  from  the  Bishop  to  Dr.  Bentley  is  suggestive  : 
“ My  dear  Sir,  Your  heart  is  benevolent,  your  head  is 
liberal ; as  your  memory  may  be  treacherous,  I take 
the  liberty  to  remind  you  of  the  tobacco.” 

The  years  following  the  Treaty  of  Peace  had  brought 
great  prosperity  to  Newburyport.  This,  together  with 
the  increasing  Parish,  and  perhaps  the  sense  of  dignity 
in  having  a Bishop  for  their  Rector,  caused  the  Con- 
gregation to  respond  to  the  Bishop’s  desire  for  a new 
Church.  One  of  the  great  occasions  of  his  life  was 
the  laying  of  the  corner-stone  of  a new  Church  in 
Newburyport,  in  place  of  the  old  one  in  which  he  had 
officiated  for  almost  fifty  years.  Mr.  Tyng  had  written 
to  Dr.  Bentley  that  “ we  are  building  a new  Church  for 
our  good  friend  Doctor  Bass.  The  excellent  old  gen- 
tleman is  so  delighted  with  the  thing  that  he  must 
needs  have  a ceremony  in  laying  the  corner-stone.” 
As  the  Bishop  was  a Mason,  he  invited  the  Grand 
Lodge  of  Massachusetts  to  take  charge  of  the  cere- 
mony. It  was  a great  day  for  him  when,  after  having 
performed  service  in  the  Second  Presbyterian  Meeting 
House,  he  walked  with  the  procession  to  the  site  of  the 


48 


Bishop  Lawrence  s 


new  Church,  passing  under  a triumphal  arch,  to  assist 
at  the  laying  of  the  corner-stone  under  Masonic  aus- 
pices, and  to  listen  to  the  address  of  Dr.  Bentley. 

Until  the  Church  was  completed,  and  the  carved 
mitre  was  set  on  the  apex  of  the  tower,  the  Congrega- 
tion worshipped  in  the  Second  Presbyterian  Meeting 
House.  It  was  an  even  greater  day  when  the  Bishop 
consecrated  the  new  St.  Paul’s  Church,  the  material 
witness  to  his  faithful  work  in  the  spiritual  edification 
of  his  people. 

H is  last  public  duty  was  characteristic.  At  the 
invitation  of  the  Newburyport  Humane  Society  for  the 
preservation  of  sailors’  lives,  of  which  he  was  a mem- 
ber, he  preached  a sermon,  in  which  he  pointed  out 
the  Saviour  as  the  One  to  whom  the  frightened  sailors 
turned  in  their  peril  upon  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  This 
sermon,  which  was  afterwards  printed,  was  preached 
upon  Tuesday,  September  6 ; on  the  following  Thurs- 
day, while  preparing  to  go  to  Portland  to  consecrate  a 
Church,  the  Bishop  was  taken  ill,  and  in  two  days, 
upon  Saturday,  September  io,  1803,  in  the  seventy- 
sixth  year  of  his  age,  he  fell  asleep.  On  the  following 
Tuesday  his  body  was  placed  at  rest  beside  the  Church, 
and  in  the  midst  of  the  people  whom  for  half  a century 
he  had  so  faithfully  served. 

I can  close  with  no  more  fitting  eulogy  than  the 
words  spoken  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Parker,  his  old  pupil 
and  friend,  his  successor  in  the  Episcopate  : — 


Historical  Discourse. 


49 


“ Dr.  Bass  was  a sound  divine,  a critical  scholar,  an  ac- 
complished gentleman,  and  an  exemplary  Christian.  His 
manners  were  polished,  his  disposition  amiable,  his  temper 
mild,  his  conversation  improving,  his  benevolence  warm,  his 
piety  uniform,  his  charity  unlimited  ....  In  his  public  dis- 
courses he  aimed  at  plainness  and  usefulness.  From  subjects 
the  least  connected  with  practical  topics  he  rarely  failed  to 
draw  something  calculated  to  mend  the  hearts  or  manners 
of  his  hearers. 

“ He  had  nothing  of  that  candor  which  looks  with  equal 
indifference  on  all  opinions.  With  the  most  scrupulous 
respect  for  the  rights  of  conscience  and  of  private  judgment 
in  others,  he  united  a firm  and  unshaken  adherence  to  that 
system  of  Christian  doctrine  and  discipline  which  he  had 
adopted  from  conviction  .... 

“But  it  was  in  the  elevated  station  of  a Diocesan  that 
the  character  of  this  excellent  man  was  most  fully  displayed. 
Anxious  above  all  things  to  approve  himself  to  the  great 
Head  of  the  Church,  his  humility  grew  with  the  honors  con- 
ferred upon  him  by  his  brethren.  So  far  was  he  from  claim- 
ing the  distinctions  appertaining  to  his  rank,  that  he  did  not 
receive  them  without  sensible  pain,  and  constantly  exhibited 
a winning  example  of  meekness  and  gentleness,  which  gave 
lustre  to  all  his  accomplishments  and  to  all  his  virtues. 

“ He  died  as  he  had  lived,  full  of  piety,  resignation  and 
humility,  and  is  doubtless  now  receiving  the  rewards  of  a 
long  and  diligent  life  spent  in  the  services  of  God  and  his 
fellow-men.” 


ADDRESSES  AT  THE  LUNCHEON 

OF  THE 


EPISCOPALIAN  CLUB. 


THE  ADDRESSES. 


MR.  CHARLES  G.  SAUNDERS, 

Diceslprest&cnt  of  tbe  Club. 

BRETHREN  of  the  Episcopalian  Club: — I give 
you  a hearty  greeting  at  this  our  last  meeting 
of  the  season,  and  in  your  name  and  behalf  I extend 
a most  cordial  welcome  to  our  guests,  our  Right 
Reverend  Fathers  and  the  many  other  friends,  both 
Clerical  and  Lay,  who  have  come  to  join  with  us  in 
celebrating  this  Centennial  Anniversary  of  the  Con- 
secration of  the  First  Bishop  of  Massachusetts. 

I must  first  express  my  unfeigned  regret  that  he 
whom  you  had  chosen  to  preside  over  your  meetings 
of  this  year,  the  President  of  our  Club,  Mr.  Robert 
Treat  Paine,  is  detained  at  home  by  illness.  I can- 
not tell  you  how  sorry  I am  that  it  has  fallen  upon 
me,  with  but  short  notice,  to  do  what  he  would  have 
done  so  much  more  gracefully  and  eloquently  than 
I can  possibly  do,  could  he  have  been  with  us 


54 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


to-day.  We  send  him  our  warmest  sympathies,  with 
the  hope  that  he  may  soon  be  restored  to  health 
and  strength. 

We  have  met  at  this  time,  later  in  the  season 
than  is  our  custom,  in  order  that  we  may  join  with 
the  Bishop  and  the  Standing  Committee  in  this 
happy  celebration ; and  it  is  appropriate  that  our 
Club  should  always  take  as  much  part  as  is  possible 
in  such  commemorations,  in  order  to  bring  home  to 
ourselves  the  lessons  they  teach.  Our  very  name 
indeed  seems  to  indicate  the  fitness  of  our  taking 
part  in  an  Episcopal  Anniversary.  I believe  it  is 
unique  among  the  designations  of  Church  Clubs  in 
this  country,  and  I have  sometimes  seen  the  mem- 
bers of  other  Clubs  smile  at  what  they  regard  a 
curious  name,  but  that  does  not  disturb  us  much  in 
Massachusetts.  I think  we  rather  pride  ourselves  in 
being  a little  different  from  other  folk, — at  least  we  are 
fond  of  saying  we  are, — and  our  name  may  mean  more 
than  some  of  our  critics  think.  If  we  are  disposed 
to  lay  a little  more  stress  here  in  Massachusetts  on 
Episcopacy  than  upon  other  Christian  doctrines,  it 
is  perhaps  because  such  teaching  is  more  needed  in 
this  community ; and  surely  there  is  no  very  great 
harm  in  our  being  a little  high  in  our  views  of  the 
authority  of  the  Episcopate. 

It  has  been  the  custom  of  the  President  to  review 
the  notable  events  that  have  occurred  in  the  Church 
since  the  preceding  meeting.  I do  not  know  that 


The  Episcopalian  Club . 


55 


anything  particularly  notable  has  happened  on  this 
side  of  the  water  since  our  dinner  in  January,  but 
perhaps  this  is  not  wholly  a misfortune.  We  are 
taught  in  Holy  Scripture  “ that  the  Kingdom  of  God 
cometh  not  with  observation,”  and  in  one  of  our 
Collects  we  pray  God  that  the  Church  may  joyfully 
serve  Him  in  all  godly  quietness.  We  have  a right, 
I think,  to  believe  that  the  Church  has  not  passed 
through  the  season  of  Lent  and  come  to  this  joyful 
Easter-tide  without  gaining  in  spiritual  force,  and 
being  the  better  prepared  to  grasp  the  problems 
that  confront  it. 

There  is  one  important  event  taking  place  at  the 
present  time,  to  which  I must  allude.  Trinity  Church, 
New  York,  is  this  week  celebrating  her  two  hun- 
dredth anniversary.  Two  hundred  years  in  England 
would  not  seem  a very  long  Parish  life,  but  in  this 
country  there  are  but  few  that  have  attained  it,  and 
none  indeed  that  have  had  the  striking  history  of 
this,  the  greatest  parochial  organization  in  our 
American  Church.  Her  celebration  has  deprived  us 
of  some  guests  that  we  had  hoped  to  have  with  us 
to-day,  but  we  send  her  our  most  hearty  congratu- 
lations, with  the  prayer  that  this  great  and  splendid 
Parish  may  go  on  in  the  years  to  come  with  the 
magnificent  work  she  has  so  long  been  doing. 

Across  the  water,  a notable  event  has  indeed  oc- 
curred within  the  last  few  weeks,  the  mention  of 
which  is  most  appropriate  at  this  time.  Doubtless 


56 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


you  all  remember  that  His  Holiness  Pope  Leo  XIII, 
last  September,  after  months  of  deliberation,  issued 
the  Bull  “ Apostolicae  Curae,”  in  which  he  denied 
the  validity  of  Anglican  Orders.  He  drops  altogether 
the  “ Nag’s  Head  ” fable,  which  Roman  Controver- 
sialists so  often  used  when  denying  our  Orders,  and 
virtually  admits  that  we  have  a tactual  succession. 
He  decides,  however,  that  the  Anglican  Ordinal 
between  1552  and  the  last  revision  in  1662,  lacked 
certain  essential  words,  and  decides  that  as  we  had 
lost  valid  Orders  during  that  century,  a revision  of 
the  Ordinal  with  a restoration  of  the  essentials  that 
were  wanting,  would  not  restore  to  us  a valid  suc- 
cession, the  chain  having  been  once  broken. 

The  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York  have 
recently  issued  an  Encyclical  to  the  Bishops  of  the 
Catholic  Church  throughout  the  world,  in  which  they 
answer  the  Pope’s  Bull.  This  letter,  dignified  and 
courteous,  free  from  the  bitterness  formerly  so  often 
found  in  such  polemical  discussions,  displays  a wealth 
of  learning  and  research ; in  it  the  Archbishops  go 
into  the  question  of  our  Orders  at  great  length. 
They  show  that  the  Roman  Pontificals  previous  to  the 
ninth  century  were  also  lacking  in  those  very  things 
which  the  Pope  now  claims  to  be  essential,  and 
which  the  English  Ordinal  lacked  previous  to  the 
revision  of  1662,  and  demonstrate  that  if  the  English 
Church  lost  the  succession,  the  Roman  Church  for 
the  same  reason  never  had  a valid  succession  before 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


57 


the  ninth  century,  and  so  of  course  never  had  one 
at  all.  This  letter  sets  forth  in  unmistakable  terms 
the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Altar, 
as  held  by  the  Anglican  Church,  and  proves  that 
we  lack  neither  Catholic  faith  nor  Catholic  Orders. 
While  it  is  true  that  our  Church  for  herself  did  not 
need  such  justification,  and  while  we  have  no  doubt 
about  our  Orders,  it  is  well  that  her  highest  digni- 
taries have  so  ably  set  forth  our  position  for  the 
information  of  other  Churches. 

Two  thoughts  are  brought  to  our  minds  by  this 
Anniversary.  First,  — the  thought  of  Bishop  Bass 
himself,  his  life  and  his  history ; and  second,  the 
fact  that  just  one  hundred  years  ago  the  Church  in 
Massachusetts  became  complete,  in  thus,  for  the  first 
time  in  its  history,  having  the  full  complement  of 
Orders,  — Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons. 

I shall  not  attempt  to  go  at  length  into  the  facts 
and  events  of  the  life  of  Dr.  Bass.  The  Bishop 
very  fully  covered  them  in  his  able  and  interesting 
discourse  in  Trinity  Church  this  morning,  and  they 
will  doubtless  be  treated  again  in  the  other  addresses 
that  make  a part  of  this  celebration,  not  only  here 
but  in  Newburyport. 

Dr.  Bass  was  the  first  Bishop  consecrated  for  this 
State,  his  Consecration  antedating  that  of  the  first 
Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Boston.  The  history  of 
the  times  shows  that  he  was  a remarkable  man. 


58 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


Newburyport  in  the  last  century,  before  the  days 
of  railroads  and  the  crowding  of  life  into  great 
centres,  was  relatively  a much  more  important  place 
than  it  is  to-day,  and  we  find  that  he  settled  there 
immediately  after  his  Ordination,  first,  as  Assistant 
in  St.  Paul’s  Parish.  He  soon  after  became  its  Rec- 
tor, and  passed  the  rest  of  a long  life  in  this  same 
town  ; for  he  remained  the  Rector  of  St.  Paul’s  during 
his  whole  Episcopate,  and  now  lies  buried  in  its 
churchyard.  Pie  was  called  upon  to  preside  at  the 
meetings  of  the  Clergy  soon  after  the  Revolution, 
and  was  always  a striking  figure  in  the  Church  his- 
tory of  the  period. 

It  is  hard  for  us  to  realize  fully  the  difficulties 
of  the  Episcopal  Clergy  at  that  day.  Bound  by  their 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Crown  and  to  the  English 
Church, — many  of  them  Missionaries  sent  out  by  the 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  and  sup- 
ported by  its  revenues, — when  the  Colonies  renounced 
allegiance  to  the  English  Crown,  and  declared  them- 
selves independent,  the  position  of  the  Clergy  was 
indeed  a difficult  one.  Many  left  their  charges  and 
went  to  England  or  to  the  loyal  Colonies.  Bass  was 
a patriot  and  remained  firm  at  his  post.  When  re- 
quested by  his  Vestry,  after  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, to  give  up  prayers  for  the  Royal  Family, 
as  being  the  only  consistent  course  for  Americans, 
he  yielded,  and  through  all  these  difficult  times  per- 
formed well  his  duties  both  as  priest  and  citizen. 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


59 


The  Rector  at  King’s  Chapel  deserted,  and  that 
Church  was  lost  to  us.  Byles  left  Christ  Church, 
Boston,  and  Walter,  Trinity  Church,  New  York,  but 
Bass  remained  faithful,  and  we  find  him  at  the  end 
of  the  struggle  strong  in  his  position  and  holding 
the  esteem  of  his  fellow-citizens. 

The  views  of  the  Church  in  Massachusetts  and  in 
Connecticut  in  regard  to  the  Episcopate  seem  to  have 
been  similar.  Bishop  Seabury,  as  you  all  know,  re- 
ceived his  Consecration  at  Aberdeen  from  the  Non- 
juring  Scotch  Bishops.  After  waiting  months  in 
London  for  Consecration  at  the  hands  of  the  English 
Episcopate,  tired  and  weary  with  the  delays,  and 
with  difficulties  that  then  seemed  almost  insurmount- 
able, he  went  to  Scotland,  and  there  obtained  what 
he  had  failed  to  receive  in  England.  We  know  that 
when  later,  Bishops  White  and  Provoost  returned 
from  London,  having  received  Consecration  at  Lam- 
beth, many  questions  were  raised  as  to  Bishop 
Seabury’s  Consecration : Massachusetts  had  no  doubts, 
for  we  find  in  1789,  an  Act  of  the  Clergy  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  New  Hampshire,  recommending  the 
Rev.  Edward  Bass  for  Consecration,  and  requesting 
the  Bishops  in  the  States  of  Connecticut,  New  York 
and  Pennsylvania  “ to  unite  in  canonically  investing 
him  with  the  Apostolic  office  and  powers,”  and  we 
find  that  he  was  chosen  Bishop,  “ to  be  received  as 
such  when  canonically  consecrated  and  invested  with 
the  Apostolic  office.”  This  is  an  important  point  to 


6o 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


be  borne  in  mind.  When  everything  seemed  so  dark 
and  uncertain,  when  the  Episcopal  Church  was  dis- 
trusted by  the  people,  her  Clergy  few,  their  flocks 
dispersed,  and  many  of  the  churches  closed;  when 
even  in  high  quarters  there  were  suggestions  that  we 
might  for  a time  at  least  go  on  without  the  Episco- 
pate,— Massachusetts  did  not  waver. 

She  was  one  with  Connecticut  in  her  views  of  the 
Apostolic  succession,  and  when  the  latter  Diocese 
obtained  a Bishop  with  valid  Orders,  consecrated  by 
true  Bishops,  she  did  not  question  the  regularity  of 
his  commission,  but  was  glad  to  receive  from  him 
the  gift  she  had  so  long  been  wanting.  We  may 
believe,  I think,  that  this  was  not  a little  due  to  the 
man  whom  we  are  to-day  honoring,  and  to  Dr.  Par- 
ker, his  successor  in  this  high  office,  who  were  the 
leaders  among  us  at  that  time. 

How  different  indeed  is  the  condition  of  the 
Church  in  Massachusetts  to-day  compared  to  that  of 
a hundred  years  ago,  when  it  first  became  fully 
equipped  for  its  work  by  the  Consecration  of  its  first 
Bishop.  Then,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massa- 
chusetts and  Rhode  Island  were  all  governed  by  a 
single  Bishop,  and  the  number  of  Parishes  and  mem- 
bers was  small.  Comparing  it  with  the  Church  in 
its  present  condition,  the  advance  is  indeed  wonder- 
ful ; but  I think  there  is  a little  danger  on  occasions 
like  this  of  looking  too  much  upon  the  bright  side 
of  things.  The  Church  to-day  in  Massachusetts  is 


The  Episcopalian  Club . 


61 


not  what  it  should  be,  either  in  numbers  or  power. 
Upon  us  rests  the  duty  to  sustain  her  faith,  to  widen 
her  influence,  and  extend  her  borders.  We  believe 
that  she  is  the  best  adapted  to  meet  the  needs  of 
the  day,  and  now  let  us  all  unite  to  do  what  in  us 
lies,  to  make  her  the  more  able  to  accomplish  that 
for  which  she  has  been  divinely  commissioned. 

You  do  not,  however,  expect  a long  speech  from 
me  to-day,  and  it  is  my  pleasant  duty  to  call  upon 
one  who  needs  no  introduction,  and  who,  although 
he  has  spoken  at  length  this  morning,  will  say  a few 
words  upon  this  occasion.  I present  to  you  the  Right 
Reverend  Bishop  of  the  Diocese. 

BISHOP  LAWRENCE. 

It  is  my  pleasant  duty  to  give  a word  of  hearty 
welcome  to  our  guests  from  the  Dioceses  existing 
at  the  time  of  the  Consecration  of  Bishop  Bass. 

One  hundred  years  ago  these  Dioceses,  staggering 
under  the  burdens  of  a desolating  war,  joined  to- 
gether in  organizing  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
and  obtaining  for  it  the  Succession  of  the  Anglican 
Church.  From  its  weakness  the  Church  has  risen 
to  great  strength.  Massachusetts,  rejoicing  in  her 
growth  and  strong  in  her  loyalty  to  the  Church,  ex- 
tends a cordial  greeting  to  the  representatives  from 
other  States. 

The  Laymen  of  Massachusetts  from  the  time  of 
Bishop  Bass  to  this  day  have  been  active  in  the 


62 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


Church  and  foremost  in  her  development.  It  is  a 
happy  and  natural  event  therefore  that  a Laymen’s 
Club  should  invite  us  all  to  meet  to-day  and  discuss 
the  significance  of  this  celebration  to  other  Dioceses 
and  the  Church  at  large. 

We  are  therefore  grateful  to  our  friends  who  have 
come  from  a distance  to  give  us  their  word  of  coun- 
sel and  cheer. 

MR.  SAUNDERS. 

Three  years  ago  when  our  Club  held  a breakfast 
to  welcome  the  Church  Congress,  then  being  held 
in  Boston,  the  Mayor  was  with  us  to  extend  his 
welcome  to  our  guests  from  abroad.  To-day,  we 
also  have  had  the  Mayor  with  us,  but  he  has  been 
called  away  by  another  engagement,  and  desired  me 
to  express  for  him  his  regrets  that  he  was  unable  to 
remain  and  speak  to  you  on  this  occasion. 

The  first  Diocese  in  this  country  to  obtain  a 
Bishop  was  Connecticut,  and  by  a coincidence  the 
primacy  of  our  Church,  which  is  invested  in  the 
Senior  Bishop,  to-day  belongs  to  the  Bishop  of  Con- 
necticut. We  are  indeed  very  sorry  that  we  have 
not  Bishop  Williams  with  us,  who  is  unable  through 
bodily  infirmity  to  be  present  to-day ; but  he  has 
sent  a worthy  representative,  who  is  no  stranger  to 
our  Club,  and  who  holds  many  important  positions 
in  the  Church  in  this  country.  During  the  revision 
of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  when  Dr.  Hunting- 
ton,  the  head  of  the  Commission  on  the  part  of  the 


The  Episcopalian  Club . 


63 


Lower  House  of  the  General  Convention,  retired 
from  the  work,  Dr.  Hart  was  appointed  his  successor, 
and  carried  the  undertaking  through  to  its  termina- 
tion. He  is  to-day  Custodian  of  the  Standard  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  and  also  the  Secretary  of  the 
House  of  Bishops.  At  the  celebration  in  Scotland 
of  the  Centennial  Anniversary  of  the  Consecration 
of  Bishop  Seabury,  he  accompanied  Bishop  Williams 
as  his  Chaplain.  I take  great  pleasure  in  introducing 
to  you,  Prof.  Samuel  Hart,  of  Trinity  College, 
Hartford. 


THE  REV.  DR.  HART. 

When  your  first  Bishop  was  elected  and  conse- 
crated, the  Church  in  Connecticut  was  without  an 
Episcopal  head.  Our  first  Bishop,  after  a most 
eventful  and  fruitful  life,  having  served  his  genera- 
tion as  well  as  his  Diocese  by  the  will  of  God,  had 
fallen  on  sleep ; and  though  there  had  been  two 
elections  to  the  vacant  Episcopate,  the  Presbyters  cho- 
sen had,  for  good  reasons,  declined  to  accept  the  office. 
But  while  Connecticut  was  thus  prevented  from 
taking  a direct  part  in  the  Consecration  of  the  first 
Bishop  of  Massachusetts,  it  was  providentially  ordered 
that  through  him,  before  the  close  of  the  year,  our 
second  Bishop  brought  again  to  us  the  Scottish  suc- 
cession which  he  had  received  through  Bishop  Clag- 
gett.  Thus  Bishop  Bass  is  a connecting  link  between 
Bishop  Seabury  and  Bishop  Jarvis. 


64 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


But  in  other  and  really  more  important  ways,  as 
indeed  we  have  been  already  reminded,  the  name  of 
your  first  Bishop  suggests  to  us  the  early  unity  of 
conviction  and  of  action  which  then  was  among  the 
Churchmen  of  New  England,  and  how  it  had  great 
influence  in  securing  unity  of  organization  for  the 
Church  in  this  whole  land.  And  indeed  it  was  but 
natural  tfyat  our  ancestors  should  have  been  found 
in  agreement.  From  the  very  first  our  Colonies  had 
had  much  in  common  ; and  in  spite  of  differences, 
Plymouth  and  Massachusetts  Bay  and  Connecticut 
and  New  Haven  had  been  bound  together  by  many 
ties.  And  if,  in  the  one  case  in  which  there  was  a 
filial  relation  between  the  two  Colonies,  Connecticut 
left  its  home  at  the  Bay  rather  more  willingly  than 
one  likes  to  have  a daughter  leave  a mother,  yet 
when  trouble  or  controversy  arose  — and  all  contro- 
versy and  most  trouble  was  theological  in  those 
days  — the  daughter  was  not  loth  to  look  to  the 
mother  for  counsel,  and  the  mother  was  not  at  all 
loth  to  give  it.  And  we  have  from  the  very  begin- 
ning strong  evidence  that  some  of  the  Colonists  had 
not  quite  forgotten  all  that  they  had  learned  from 
the  historic  Church  in  the  old  home. 

The  first  controversy  which  caused  excitement 
here  in  Boston  as  well  as  in  Hartford,  was  between 
those  who  followed  the  strict  Congregational  way  and 
those  who  had  enough  of  the  Churchly  — or  at  least 
let  us  say  of  the  parochial  — spirit  left  in  them  to 


The  Episcopalian  Club . 


65 


feel  that  they  could  not  quite  break  with  all  its  prin 
ciples  and  all  its  customs.  The  adoption  of  the 
Saybrook  platform  in  Connecticut  gave  to  our  Stand- 
ing Order  a character  different  from  that  which 
marked  the  Independent  societies  here,  both  prepar- 
ing the  way  for  the  introduction  of  Episcopacy  and 
setting  a barrier  against  the  approach  of  Unitarianism. 

Later  came  the  time  when  the  ominous  tidings 
reached  the  Bay  that  the  collegiate  school  in  Con- 
necticut, but  recently  removed  to  its  new  home  in 
New  Haven  and  beginning  to  be  a worthy  sister  to 
the  older  institution  at  Cambridge,  was  in  imminent 
danger  of  becoming  a hot-bed  of  prelacy.  Its  two 
officers  of  instruction,  and  with  them  five  others  of 
the  most  influential  and  learned  ministers  of  the 
neighborhood,  had  been  so  affected  by  the  writings 
of  English  divines  which  they  had  studied  in  the 
College  library,  that  some  of  them  were  satisfied  that 
they  could  no  longer  act  as  ministers  in  Christ’s 
Church  without  having  received  ordination  from  a 
Bishop,  while  the  others  had  very  serious  doubts  in 
the  matter. 

From  the  Bay  there  came  voices  of  lamentation 
and  admonition ; but  Rector  Cutler  and  Tutor  Brown 
and  ex-Tutor  Johnson  sailed  for  England  to  seek  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  ask  for  ordination ; 
and  they  were  soon  followed  by  one  of  their  com- 
panions. Brown  died  in  England,  the  first  of  those 
whose  names  on  the  too  long  roll  testify  to  what  the 


66 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


mother  Church  might  have  done  but  would  not  do 
for  us ; Cutler  came  back  to  your  Christ  Church,  and 
Johnson  to  be  the  real  founder  and  for  a long  time 
the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  Church  in  Connect- 
icut. For  in  this  most  marvellous  way,  quite  un- 
paralleled (I  suppose)  in  all  history,  the  Church  in 
our  Colony  had  practically  its  origin.  Services  had 
indeed  been  held  by  a missionary  from  Westchester 
County,  under  the  protection  of  the  zealous  Colonel 
Heathcote  — it  was  the  only  time  when  Episcopacy 
in  Connecticut  had  the  defence  of  the  “ civil  arm  ” 
— and  one  parish  had  been  organized  ; but  the  whole 
life  of  our  Diocese  comes  from  events  that  had  their 
beginning  when  the  seven  ministers  read  Anglican 
theology  together  in  the  library  at  New  Haven,  and 
their  turning-point  in  the  declaration  of  these  same 
ministers  on  the  day  after  Commencement  in  1722. 

Now  in  all  this,  while  there  was  in  many  ways  a 
close  connection  and  a community  of  interest  and 
sympathy  between  the  Episcopalians  of  Massachusetts 
and  those  of  Connecticut,  there  were  also  circum- 
stances which  cast  their  history  in  somewhat  different 
moulds.  You  had  Royal  Governors,  and  a King’s 
Chapel,  and  chaplains  sent  from  England ; you  could 
claim  that  you  were  legally  the  Established  Church, 
although  you  were  prevented  by  dissenters  from  ex- 
ercising all  your  prerogatives ; you  had  at  least  a 
prestige  of  honor  and  a sort  of  inherited  position. 
We  in  matters  external  were  autochthonous ; we  held 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


67 


strongly  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England, 
but  it  was  because  we  had  studied  out  its  principles 
and  claims  for  ourselves ; our  Priests  were  in  English 
Orders,  but  it  was  because  they  had  gone  to  England 
and  asked  for  authority  to  minister  to  their  people ; 
we  were  but  dissenters,  though  dignified  by  being 
ranked  legally  as  “ sober  dissenters.”  So  it  came 
about  that  our  Churchmanship  was  in  the  first  place 
based  on  strong  principle,  and  in  the  second  place 
“ purely  ecclesiastical.” 

Our  Clergymen  were  sons  of  our  own  soil,  brought 
up,  educated,  and  tested  at  home,  living  among  those 
who  had  known  them  from  childhood,  often  minister- 
ing in  communities  of  kinsfolk  and  early  friends,  and 
maintaining  a good  reputation  for  godliness  and 
learning  and  self-sacrifice.  We  had  on  the  roll  of 
our  Clergy  in  Connecticut  before  the  Revolution  but 
two  or  three  who  were  of  English  birth,  and  two 
who  were  natives  of  other  Colonies.  We  sent  abroad 
forty-three  candidates  for  Holy  Orders,  all  college 
graduates  ; and  of  the  thirty-seven  who  escaped  the 
dangers  of  the  sea,  the  deadly  pestilence,  and  the 
violence  of  enemies,  thirty  entered  upon  ministerial 
work  within  our  borders.  For  this  reason  the  Church 
in  our  Colony  was  a Church  of  the  people;  and  for 
this  reason,  in  spite  of  some  acts  of  hardship  to  in- 
dividuals, the  attitude  of  the  community  towards  it, 
both  officially  and  personally,  was  on  the  whole 
kindly  and  fair. 


68 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


A person  who  was  a Tory  on  principle  generally 
commanded  respect  in  Connecticut,  if  he  deserved 
it  for  other  reasons ; Dr.  Seabury,  while  he  was 
abroad  seeking  Consecration,  was  assured  that  the 
civil  authority  would  make  no  objection  to  his  return 
with  an  ecclesiastical  title  ; and  when  he  came  back, 
the  little  irritation  which  he  caused  found  sufficient 
expression  in  more  frequent  use  of  the  title  “ Bishop” 
for  the  ministers  of  the  Standing  Order,  and  the 
substitution  of  episcopi  for  pastores  on  the  programme 
for  the  College  Commencement.  The  observance  of 
Christmas  was  never  a crime  by  our  laws ; and  now 
for  more  than  a hundred  consecutive  years  our  Gov- 
ernors have  appointed  Good  Friday  as  the  annual 
State  fast.  In  fact,  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Con- 
necticut, although  she  has  held  strong  doctrines  in 
matters  ecclesiastical  and  sacerdotal,  has  always  been, 
and  has  been  recognized  as  being,  a Church  of  and  in 
a democracy. 

Matters  were  not  altogether  after  this  fashion  — 
as  I suppose  no  one  can  doubt  — in  Massachusetts. 
The  somewhat  aristocratic  flavor  of  the  English  Es- 
tablishment almost  of  necessity  made  itself  felt, 
claimed  some  rights,  and  provoked  some  opposition. 
Therefore  we  cannot  but  wonder  a little  at  the 
harmony  of  conviction  and  of  action  which  there  was 
between  the  Churchmen  of  the  royal  Province  and 
those  of  the  democratic  Colony,  which  soon  became 
two  sister  States.  I do  not  mean  of  course,  to  ex- 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


69 


press  surprise  that  there  was  agreement  in  faith,  or 
in  order,  or  in  worship  ; this  was  taken  for  granted  ; 
in  those  days  to  accept  the  Church’s  doctrine,  and 
discipline,  and  forms  of  devotion,  cost  so  much  that 
he  who  had  accepted  them  did  not  readily  give  them 
up ; and  his  neighbors  did  not  expect  to  have  him 
treat  them  as  things  of  no  consequence.  But  that 
matters  should  have  been  looked  upon  from  almost 
exactly  the  same  stand-point,  that  the  truth  should 
have  been  seen  in  so  nearly  the  same  perspective, 
that  there  should  have  been  so  often  a close  agree- 
ment as  to  what  was  the  most  important  duty  of  the 
hour  and  the  way  in  which  it  should  be  undertaken 
— this  does  seem  extraordinary ; I might  better  say, 
this  does  show  the  gracious  ordering  of  Divine  Provi- 
dence. 

When  Bishop  Seabury,  with  his  education  and 
experiences,  and  Dr.  Samuel  Parker,  with  his  edu- 
cation and  experiences,  found  themselves  in  critical 
times  such  ready  co-workers,  it  was  a proof  that 
there  was  a good  strong  underlying  principle  of 
Churchmanship  that  had  been  nurtured  in  the  differ- 
ent parts  of  New  England,  even  under  circumstances 
which  seemed  not  altogether  the  same. 

I need  not  remind  you,  here  and  now,  of  all  that 
we  owe  to  the  patience  and  boldness  and  wisdom 
of  Bishop  Seabury  and  Dr.  Parker,  in  the  succes- 
sive steps  of  the  movements  which  brought  about 
the  union  of  the  Church  in  this  land.  It  has  entered 


70 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


into  our  history,  and  is  worthily  commemorated  on 
this  centenary  of  the  Consecration  of  your  first 
Bishop,  whose  name  is  so  closely  connected  with  the 
earliest  proposition  for  a practical  union  of  the  Church 
in  New  England  with  that  in  the  other  States. 

But,  as  I have  alluded  to  some  of  the  distin- 
guishing marks  of  Churchmanship  in  the  ancient 
Diocese  for  which  I have  been  asked  to  speak,  I 
may  be  pardoned  if  I say  a word  further  in  regard 
to  them.  I am  well  aware  that  there  is  such  a thing 
as  a Diocesan  narrowness,  which  is  not  many  degrees 
wider  than  parochial  narrowness ; and  that  the  life  of 
the  Church  may  not  and  must  not  be  restrained  in 
channels  of  human  devising,  or  even  of  historical 
shaping,  and  yet,  as  we  all  know,  there  is  an  idio- 
syncrasy, an  r,dos  that  belongs  to  nearly  every  assem- 
blage of  men,  from  the  great  nation  to  the  little 
family,  never  easily  defined,  sometimes  not  easily  de- 
tected, which  yet  is  real,  and  natural,  and  most  whole- 
some in  its  working  and  its  results.  It  often  comes 
from  what  in  a large  sense  of  the  word  may  be 
called  heredity,  and  is  the  resultant  of  forces  and 
powers  that  have  worked  upon  men  and  through 
men,  and  have  made  their  actions  tell  upon  following 
generations.  This  need  not  be  a sign  of  narrow- 
ness; it  is  rightly  a mark  of  individuality.  You  will 
find  something  in  the  alumni  of  any  university,  if 
they  are  worthy  sons  of  their  alma  mater , which 
marks  their  scholarship  as  in  some  way  different  from 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


7l 


that  of  the  alumni  of  other  universities ; and  every 
institution  of  true  learning,  if  it  is  at  all  doing  its 
real  work,  leaves  an  impress,  a “ character,”  upon 
those  who  come  under  its  influence.  In  like  manner 
we  honor  those  whose  life  and  teaching  show  that 
they  belong  to  the  school  of  some  great  master,  and 
we  do  not  feel  that  this  detracts  either  from  their 
independence  or  from  the  value  of  their  work  as  in- 
dividuals. 

Every  nation  has  its  national  peculiarities,  in  one 
sense  the  crystallization  and  in  another  sense  the 
life  of  its  history ; even  a little  nation,  if  it  has  had 
a notable  part  to  play,  sets  a mark  upon  all  its  citi- 
zens ; and  we  do  not  feel  quite  satisfied  with  a man 
who  is  so  absolutely  cosmopolitan  that  nothing  about 
him  shows  the  land  of  his  birth,  or  of  his  training, 
or  of  his  chosen  allegiance.  In  some  such  way  as 
this  I think  that  a plea  may  be  made  for  Diocesan 
Churchmanship.  If  we  may  not  safely  break  with 
the  past ; if  we  cherish  the  life  which  has  come  to 
us  through  the  experiences  of  our  spiritual  ancestors  ; 
if  we  know  what  it  cost  them  to  kindle  the  torch 
which  they  kept  burning  not  for  themselves  alone  but 
also  that  they  might  hand  it  on  to  us  who  were  to 
come  after ; then  surely  we  need  no  more  be  ashamed 
that  we  have  inherited  an  ^#0?  as  Churchmen,  than 
that  we  have  something  in  us  which  marks  us  as 
members  of  a family  or  citizens  of  a nation. 


7 2 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


I do  not  think  that  we  need  to  be  ashamed  that 
we  have  received  in  a particular  way  principles  of 
steadfast  loyalty,  of  strict  obedience,  and  of  faithful 
service  ; or  that  we  believe  that  in  somewhat  the 
same  way  we  can  best  maintain  and  transmit  them. 
We  cannot  but  value  highly  that  which  we  know  has 
cost  so  much ; only  we  must  not  depreciate  that 
which  others  hold  at  a like  cost  ; we  cannot  call  that 
a matter  of  indifference  which  has  been  a true  in- 
spiration of  our  lives ; only  we  must  not  deny  the 
reality  of  the  life  which  has  received  its  nourishment, 
albeit  from  the  same  source,  yet  through  other  chan- 
nels. The  unique  beginning  and  the  remarkable 
history  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut — a State  which 
has  itself  a history  unlike  that  of  any  of  its  sister 
States  — have  fitted  it  to  do  a special  work,  and  to 
have  a special  influence,  while  also  they  have  made 
it  necessary  that,  working  with  others,  it  should  be 
in  its  turn  influenced  by  them.  We  are  reminded 
to-day  of  the  value  of  the  influence  exerted  and  the 
influence  felt  in  the  earlier  days,  and  how  each  of 
the  Dioceses  of  the  Church  in  our  infant  republic  had 
something  to  contribute  to  the  due  furnishing  and 
instruction  of  that  Church. 

The  principles  implied  in  the  words  used  by  a 
recent  writer  to  describe  the  first  Bishop  of  Connect- 
icut are  principles  which  commend  themselves  to  all 
Churchmen: — “That  simple,  grand,  accommodating, 
uncompromising  man ! ” They  are  the  marks  of  the 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


n 


Churchmanship  which  was  so  strong  in  New  England 
a century  ago,  and  will  always  be  strong  wherever 
it  is  to  be  found,  while  men  have  high  ideas  of  the 
Church  and  lowly  ideas  of  their  own  importance  in 
it,  with  wide  conceptions  of  faith  and  obedience, 
never  limiting  God’s  grace  and  yet  sure  as  to  the 
way  in  which  they  are  bidden  to  seek  it,  and  never 
so  thinking  of  privilege  as  to  ignore  solemn  exhor- 
tations to  duty.  The  ideal  is  so  lofty  that  it  will  not 
make  any  earnest  man  conceited  ; the  responsibility  is 
so  manifold  that  it  will  not  narrow  his  convictions  or 
his  sympathies.  In  some  such  way  I venture  to  hope 
that  the  spirit  of  our  Churchmanship,  which  we  dare 
not  throw  away  and  cannot  lose,  will  continue  to  prove 
itself  a manifestation  of  the  Spirit  “ to  profit  withal ; ” 
and  that,  influencing  others  as  we  perhaps  may,  and  in- 
fluenced by  others  as  we  doubtless  ought  to  be,  we  may 
have  a worthy  part  in  the  work  of  the  Church  during 
the  years  that  are  to  follow  until  the  Lord’s  return. 

Thus  recalling  the  harmony  in  which  our  forefathers 
in  the  faith  labored  together,  thankful  for  all  that  they 
were  enabled  to  accomplish  for  themselves  and  for 
their  brethren  and  for  the  Master,  and  with  most 
hearty  congratulations  on  the  good  work  that  has  been 
done  in  this  Diocese  during  the  century  which  has 
passed  since  your  first  Bishop  was  consecrated  to  his 
high  office,  we  pray  for  a blessing  on  all  that  yet  re- 
mains for  you  to  do,  trusting  that  we  may  share  in  your 
labors,  hoping  that  we  may  be  partakers  of  your  joy. 


74 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


MR.  SAUNDERS. 

In  reviewing  the  early  history  of  the  Church  in 
the  United  States,  our  thoughts  at  once  turn  to 
Pennsylvania,  the  home  of  Bishop  White,  that  great 
statesman  and  leader,  for  many  years  the  presiding 
Bishop  of  our  Church,  to  whose  wise  guiding  the 
Church  owes  so  much.  Christ  Church,  Philadelphia, 
also  comes  to  our  minds,  a Parish  which  has  filled 
so  important  a part  in  our  history,  where  Gen. 
Washington  and  other  leaders  at  that  time  were 
wont  to  worship,  and  whose  Rector  was  Chaplain  to 
the  Continental  Congress.  We  have,  as  a representa- 
tive of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania,  one  who  has 
taken  a prominent  part  in  its  Diocesan  affairs,  and 
who  has  often  spoken  in  Church  Congresses.  As  a 
son  of  Harvard,  I gladly  welcome  a Professor  from 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  the  University  which 
gave  our  Bishop  Bass  his  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity. 
I am  glad  to  introduce  to  you,  George  W.  Pepper, 
Esq.,  Professor  in  the  Law  Department  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania. 

MR.  GEORGE  WHARTON  PEPPER. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Episcopalian  Club  : — I am 
happy  to  be  the  bearer  of  greetings  from  the  Church 
in  Pennsylvania.  The  Pennsylvania  Diocesan  Con- 
vention was  in  session  yesterday,  and  by  it  the  follow- 
ing Resolution  was  unanimously  adopted  : 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


75 


Whereas , The  Diocese  of  Massachusetts  will  to-morrow 
celebrate  the  One  Hundredth  Anniversary  of  the  Consecra- 
tion of  Edward  Bass,  first  Bishop  of  Massachusetts  ; and 

Whereas , The  fraternal  relations  subsisting  between  the 
members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese 
of  Pennsylvania  and  their  brethren  in  Massachusetts  are 
even  closer  and  more  intimate  than  those  which  existed  be- 
tween their  ancestors  a century  ago  : therefore  be  it 

Resolved , That  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  Cler- 
ical and  Lay  Deputies,  in  the  One  Hundred  and  Thirteenth 
Annual  Convention  assembled,  send  their  most  cordial  greet- 
ings to  the  Church  in  Massachusetts,  and  extend  their  warm- 
est congratulations  upon  the  occasion  of  the  Centennial 
Celebration  of  the  Founding  of  the  Diocese  in  that  State. 

In  conveying  to  you  this  assurance  of  our  affection- 
ate regard,  I am  discharging  a duty  which  would  be 
pleasant  under  any  circumstances,  but  it  is  particularly 
pleasant  under  the  circumstances  as  they  exist  — for 
the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania  had  a direct  interest  and 
an  important  part  in  the  events  which  we  are  assem- 
bled to  commemorate. 

Whenever  Pennsylvania,  on  such  an  occasion  as 
this,  is  paying  her  tribute  of  loving  respect  to  her 
departed  sons,  it  is  the  custom  for  the  representative 
from  Massachusetts  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  Benja- 
min Franklin,  the  greatest  of  them  all,  was  a Massa- 
chusetts man.  It  was  doubtless  one  of  your  fellow 
citizens  who  proposed  that  most  unkind  toast:  “ Here’s 
to  the  three  great  Pennsylvanians  — James  Wilson  of 


76 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


Scotland,  Albert  Gallatin  of  Switzerland,  and  Benjamin 
Franklin  of  Massachusetts  ! ” I am  sorry  that  history 
makes  it  impossible  for  me  to  lay  claim  to  Bishop 
Bass  as  a Pennsylvanian.  I may  remind  you,  however, 
that  as  Benjamin  Franklin  forsook  Boston  for  Philadel- 
phia as  soon  as  he  was  old  enough  to  travel,  so  Edward 
Bass,  of  mature  age  and  ripe  judgment,  made  his  pil- 
grimage to  the  City  of  Brotherly  Love  to  be  conse- 
crated by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  Bishop  White 
and  to  receive  an  honorary  degree  from  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania.  On  the  Centennial  Anniversary  of 
the  Consecration  of  Bishop  Bass  I therefore  bring  you 
our  heartfelt  greetings. 

It  has  been  well  said  that  national  recollections  are 
the  foundations  of  national  character.  We  are  strongly 
influenced  by  the  contemplation  of  the  lives  and  deeds 
of  the  Nation’s  founders.  The  true  American  of  to- 
day is  what  he  is  in  virtue  of  the  inspiration  that  he 
catches  from  the  American  past.  What  is  true  of  the 
Nation  should  be  true  of  the  Church.  When  we  apply 
this  proposition  in  its  deepest  meaning  to  the  Founder 
and  Head  of  the  Christian  Church,  it  becomes,  to  the 
Christian,  a self-evident  proposition.  In  a sense  sim- 
ilar, but  not  the  same,  we  can  find  valuable  material 
for  the  forming  of  Christian  character  in  the  study  of 
the  lives  of  the  Saints  ; and  we  do  well  to  set  before 
our  eyes  from  time  to  time  the  founders  of  our  Ameri- 
can Church  as  examples  of  all  that  is  wise  and  patriotic 
and  true. 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


77 


In  this  group  of  founders  Massachusetts  was  repre- 
sented by  Edward  Bass,  and  Pennsylvania  by  William 
White.  Of  your  own  Bishop  it  is  more  fitting  that 
you  should  speak  than  I.  You  are  his  children  in  the 
spirit,  and  may  justly  claim  the  privilege  of  pronoun- 
cing over  his  memory  a well- deserved  eulogy.  I,  on 
the  other  hand,  should  not  be  true  to  my  own  Diocese 
were  I to  fail,  on  an  occasion  like  this,  to  remind  you 
of  the  debt  which  Pennsylvania  and  Massachusetts 
alike  owe  to  him  who  may,  in  some  sense,  be  called 
the  Patriarch  of  the  American  Church. 

When  the  War  of  the  Revolution  was  over, — when 
independence  had  been  achieved,  — the  Nation  was 
confronted  with  difficulties  and  beset  with  dangers 
which  were  in  many  respects  more  formidable  than 
those  through  which  it  had  passed.  The  visible  foes 
of  the  present  had  been  overcome  ; what  of  the  invisi- 
ble foes  of  the  future  ? The  Articles  of  Confederation 
had  proved  to  be  a rope  of  sand  which  breaks  in 
twisting.  What  should  take  their  place?  If  there  was 
to  be  a central  government,  what  should  be  the  meas- 
ure of  its  powers  and  in  what  relation  should  it  stand 
to  the  several  independent  Colonies  or  States  ? Doubt 
and  distrust,  envy  and  rivalry,  — these  threatened  to 
do  their  deadly  work.  The  hour  of  trial  had  indeed 
come,  and,  by  the  grace  of  God,  with  the  hour  came 
the  man.  Who  can  exaggerate  the  services  which 
Washington  rendered  to  his  country  in  the  time  that 


78 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


followed  ? In  those  years  he  showed  himself  as  even 
a greater  man  than  he  had  appeared  at  Valley  Forge 
and  at  Yorktown. 

Now,  the  truth  of  what  I have  been  saying  is  ad- 
mitted by  us  all.  We  cannot  name  the  names  of 
Washington  and  his  associates  without  thinking  of 
their  deeds  ; and  to  think  of  their  deeds  is  to  glow 
with  patriotic  gratitude.  But  are  we  not  apt  to  forget 
that  what  these  men  did  for  our  Nation,  Bishop  White 
and  his  associates  did  for  our  Church  ? The  appeal  to 
history  justifies  the  parallel.  The  Nation  had  broken 
away  from  the  Mother  Country : had  we  broken  away 
also  from  the  Mother  Church  ? The  union  of  Church 
and  State  had  at  first  been  found  intolerable,  and  had 
then  been  made  impossible  : did  this  mean  the  extinc- 
tion of  Episcopacy  in  America,  and  the  loss  of  the 
New  World  to  the  Anglican  Church  ? The  air  was 
full  of  voices  which  answered  “ Yes.”  It  needed 
courage  to  proclaim  a contrary  view,  and  wisdom  to 
make  the  proclamation  effectual.  The  courage  and 
the  wisdom  were  found  united  in  William  White,  whose 
memory  I ask  you  to  cherish  with  reverent  gratitude 
at  the  same  time  that  you  look  back  with  loving  recol- 
lection to  your  own  Bishop,  Edward  Bass.  In  the  long 
and  trying  diplomatic  episode  which  issued  happily  in 
the  complete  reconciliation  between  himself  and  Bishop 
Seabury ; in  the  statesmanlike  adaptation  of  the  frame 
of  Church  government  to  the  conditions  of  the  new 
Nation  ; in  the  happy  blending  of  clerical  and  lay  con- 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


79 


trol ; in  the  wise  moderation  which  enabled  him  to 
win  for  the  Church  not  only  toleration  but  respect  and 
adherence — in  these  matters,  and  in  a thousand  other 
ways,  Bishop  White  showed  himself  to  be  the  man 
chosen  of  God  to  guide  and  guard  His  Church  at  a 
crucial  period  in  its  history.  Such  an  occasion  as  this, 
therefore,  is  not  merely  commemorative.  It  should  be, 
it  cannot  fail  to  be,  a source  of  inspiration  to  us,  in 
that  it  brings  us  into  closer  contact  with  those  men, 
after  whose  model  we  may  well  fashion  our  lives  and 
our  conduct. 

The  mention  of  the  men  recalls  the  scenes  in  which 
they  figured.  The  Philadelphia  of  a hundred  years 
ago  comes  before  our  mind’s  eye,  and  we  can  readily 
picture  it  as  it  appeared  to  Edward  Bass  on  the  seventh 
of  May,  1797,  the  day  of  his  Consecration  as  Bishop. 
There  are,  perhaps,  those  among  you  who  are  unkind 
enough  to  think  that  to  see  the  Philadelphia  of  a cen- 
tury ago  we  have  only  to  look  on  the  Philadelphia  of 
to-day — so  little  do  some  of  our  friends  know  of  our 
progress  during  the  interval.  Be  that  as  it  may,  old 
Christ  Church,  like  Independence  Hall,  stands  to-day 
substantially  as  it  stood  then.  The  visitor  is  still 
pointed  to  the  pew  then  lately  occupied  by  Washing- 
ton and  is  told  that  when  the  great  man  entered  the 
Church  the  entire  congregation  rose  and  remained 
standing  until  he  had  taken  his  seat.  In  the  pew  next 
to  the  pulpit  from  which  Bishop  White  preached  sat 
Robert  Morris,  the  financier.  Benjamin  Franklin  and 


8o 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


Francis  Hopkinson  were  parishioners  and  Alexander 
Hamilton  was  a worshiper  there. 

The  Philadelphia  of  that  day  was  a metropolitan 
city.  It  may  be  said  to  have  occupied  the  position 
which  Boston  has  since  assumed.  As  long  as  it  was 
the  National  Capital  the  three  most  prominent  officials 
within  its  borders  were  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Provost  of 
the  University.  The  University  officials  were  strong 
Churchmen  and  the  institution  was  a centre  of  Church 
influence.  The  curriculum  of  study  formulated  by 
Provost  Smith,  for  the  course  in  arts,  was  the  basis  of 
the  American  college  course  for  nearly  a century  there- 
after. On  all  sides  the  Church  was  growing  and 
spreading.  New  Parishes  were  being  formed,  and  the 
circle  of  her  influence  was  continually  widening. 

With  such  an  origin,  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania 
would  indeed  be  degenerate  if  her  unworthy  represen- 
tative could  not  give  a good  account  of  her.  In  point 
of  fact,  it  is  well  with  us.  At  the  Convention  which 
has  just  closed  the  Bishop  reported  a larger  number 
of  Confirmations  than  in  any  previous  year,  and  a 
larger  amount  of  money  contributed  to  missionary  uses 
than  in  any  previous  year.  More  than  this,  the  Dio- 
cese is  united  and  in  harmony  with  itself.  The  devo- 
tion to  the  Bishop  is  most  noteworthy.  The  time  was 
when  those  of  my  way  of  thinking  had  a hard  time 
in  Pennsylvania,  when  the  adjective  “ high,”  as  ap- 
plied to  a Churchman,  had  something  of  the  same 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


8 


significance  as  when  applied  in  law  to  crimes.  Now 
men  of  all  forms  of  thought  dwell  together  in  unity, 
and  votes  in  Convention  are  no  longer  taken  on  strict 
party  lines,  as  they  once  were. 

Of  course  we  have  had  our  problems  to  solve.  In 
common  with  the  rest  of  the  Church,  we  have  had  our 
problems  of  belief — those  anxious  ^questionings  as  to 
Christian  truth  and  verity.  We  have  had  to  contend 
with  the  wave  of  Agnosticism  which  has  thundered 
against  the  walls  of  the  Church.  But  in  the  very  year 
in  which  the  completion  of  the  Synthetic  Philosophy  is 
being  celebrated  we  may  venture  the  assertion  that 
the  tide  has  turned  and  has  left  the  territory  of  the 
Church  as  large  as  ever.  In  this  respect  our  position 
is  almost  as  good  as  that  of  our  little  sister  Diocese  of 
Delaware,  of  which  Randolph  said  that  she  had  two 
counties  when  the  tide  was  in  and  three  when  it 
was  out. 

Again,  we  have  felt  the  influence  of  the  tendency 
to  exaggerate  the  truth  that  religion  is  three-fourths 
conduct — with  the  corresponding  tendency  to  belittle 
the  claims  of  Catholic  dogma  upon  the  attention  of 
thinking  men.  I believe  that  I speak  for  a great  body 
of  young  men,  not  only  in  Pennsylvania  but  in  the 
Church  at  large,  who  have  no  wish  to  be  numbered 
among  Lord  Bacon’s  “ discoursing  wits  who  count  it  a 
bondage  to  fix  a belief.”  They  are  asking  with  earnest 
insistence  for  definite  and  positive  teaching  upon  Chris- 
tian doctrine  and  our  Clergy  are  beginning  to  comply 


82 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


with  the  demand.  I say  this  advisedly,  and  in  spite  of 
Professor  Davidson’s  recent  vindication  of  the  superior 
claims  of  the  creed  of  the  Sultan  upon  our  acceptance^ 
We  have  faced  the  problems  presented  by^the 
Higher  Criticism  of  the  Scriptures  and  we  have  learned 
to  appreciate  the  unselfish  devotion  to  the  cause  of 
scientific  truth  which  characterizes  the  work  of  the  true 
higher  critic.  In  Philadelphia,  however,  with  a charac- 
teristic love  of  what  is  ancient,  we  have  emphasized 
the  importance  of  archaeological  research  as  a co-ordi- 
nate source  of  Biblical  knowledge  ; and  the  Babylonian 
expedition  sent  out  by  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
has  already  attained  important  results.  We  have  a 
little  sense  of  humor,  however,  and  we  cannot  help 
seeing  the  fun  in  a story  recently  told  at  the  expense 
of  certain  pseudo-critics  whose  clamor  is  higher  than 
their  criticism.  It  was  related  of  a farmer  that  he 
offered  to  sell  to  the  keeper  of  a city  hotel  a car-load 
of  frogs’  legs.  The  astonished  hotel-keeper  expressed 
his  belief  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  find  frogs 
enough  to  fill  the  order.  After  some  debate  he  ordered 
a bushel  and  the  farmer  went  away.  After  the  lapse 
of  a week  the  crestfallen  countryman  returned  with  half 
a dozen  pairs  in  a small  basket.  Upon  being  pressed 
for  an  explanation,  he  said : “ I never  looked  into  the 
matter  myself  before  I took  the  order,  but  there  is  a 
pond  just  back  of  my  house  and,  from  the  noise  the 
frogs  made  there  at  night,  I thought  it  would  be  an 
easy  matter  to  gather  a million  of  them.” 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


83 


But  I can  almost  hear  you  saying,  “ Enough  of  the 
Past : what  of  the  Future  ? ” We  believe  it  to  be  full 
of  promise.  We  believe  that, 'rich  in  our  heritage  of 
Catholic  truth,  our  Church  will  grow  and  grow,  so  that 
the  development  of  the  century  that  has  passed  is  not 
worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glories  of  future 
progress.  But  may  I emphasize  what  I believe  to  be  a 
condition  of  progress?  It  is  the  recognition  of  the 
truth  that  the  mere  material  growth  of  the  Church,  the 
development  of  new  Parishes  and  Missions,  the  secur- 
ing of  sites  in  new  territory,  must  be  made  the  subject 
of  more  careful  study.  I believe  (and  I am  speaking 
from  the  point  of  view  of  mere  business  and  general- 
ship) that  the  hands  of  the  Episcopate  must  be 
strengthened  and  that  larger  demands  must  be  made 
upon  the  Bishops  in  respect  of  statesmanship.  There 
are  well  organized  forces  in  the  field  with  which  we 
must  compete.  If  to  the  harmlessness  of  doves  we 
add  the  wisdom  of  serpents,  Massachusetts,  Pennsyl- 
vania and  the  American  Church  have  nothing  to  fear ! 

MR.  SAUNDERS. 

We  regret  very  much  that  we  have  not  with  us 
to-day  a representative  from  the  Diocese  of  New 
York.  Several  would  have  been  glad  to  have  been 
here,  were  it  not  for  their  own  celebration  in  Trinity 
Church.  I have,  however,  a letter  from  Mr.  Everett 
P.  Wheeler,  to  whom  we  have  gladly  listened  in 


84 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


times  past,  and  who  was  prevented  by  business  en- 
gagements from  coming  here  to-day. 

The  last  Diocese  to  seek  the  Consecration  of  its 
Bishop  abroad  was  Virginia.  With  the  Consecration 
of  Bishop  Madison  at  Lambeth  in  1790,  there  were 
then  three  Bishops  in  this  country,  who  had  received 
their  Orders  in  the  direct  English  line,  and  through 
the  Bishop  of  Maryland  Bishop  Bass  traced  his 
Orders  to  Bishop  Madison.  We  have  asked  a Vir- 
ginian to  our  board  to-day, — one,  who  through  a 
long  line  of  ancestors  is  connected  with  the  first 
planting  of  the  Church  at  Jamestown  ; a graduate  of 
the  University  of  Virginia,  and  a member  of  its  gov- 
erning Board,  and  a delegate  to  the  General  Con- 
vention from  his  Diocese. 

Massachusetts  is  said  to  love  a “ Mugwump,”  and 
she  will  gladly  welcome  one  who  has  left  his  party 
for  conscience’  sake,  when  he  believed  his  party  to 
be  wrong.  Surely  every  one  will  sympathize  with  a 
man,  who  during  the  last  campaign  threw  the  whole 
weight  of  his  character  and  influence  for  the  cause  of 
sound  money ; but  whether  we  sympathize  with  his 
cause  or  not,  we  honor  a man  who  parted  from 
political  friends  and  associates  of  a lifetime,  when  he 
believed  such  a course  to  be  for  his  country’s  welfare. 
I take  great  pleasure  in  presenting  to  you,  Joseph 
Bryan,  Esq.,  of  Richmond,  Virginia,  the  editor  and 
proprietor  of  the  “ Richmond  Times.” 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


85 


MR.  JOSEPH  BRYAN. 

Mr.  President  : — I cannot  refrain  from  at  once 
expressing  the  great  gratification  I have  in  participat- 
ing in  this  most  interesting  occasion.  While  I bear 
no  commission  from  the  Church  in  Virginia,  as  my 
friend  [Dr.  Pepper]  does  from  Pennsylvania,  I know 
that  if  our  Diocesan  Council  had,  like  his,  been  in 
session,  I would  bring  to  you  the  congratulations  and 
Godspeed  of  those  who  would  rejoice  to  see  this 
impressive  demonstration  of  the  strength  of  the 
Church  in  the  once  Puritan  stronghold. 

There  is  a special  fitness  in  an  expression  of  sym- 
pathy and  congratulations  on  this  Centennial  occasion 
from  Virginia  to  Massachusetts.  The  foundation  of 
these  two  Colonies  was  the  most  important  of  all  the 
events  which  led  to  the  establishment  of  the  American 
Union.  The  settlers  at  Jamestown  and  at  Plymouth 
represented  respectively  the  two  great  divisions  of 
English  thought,  both  in  religion  and  in  politics.  If 
Massachusetts  was  made  the  home  of  the  Independent 
and  anti-Church  and  anti-King  party,  Virginia  was 
founded  and  inhabited  by  those  who  clung  to  both 
Church  and  State,  as  they  had  left  them  at  home. 
If  Massachusetts  was  New  England,  Virginia  was,  as 
it  were,  a part  of  Old  England  itself,  with  all  its 
traditions  and  loyalty,  set  down  on  this  Western 
shore.  The  problems  of  government  and  of  religion 


86 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


were  approached  by  the  people  of  Jamestown  and  of 
Plymouth  from  opposite  points  of  view. 

It  is  noticeable,  Mr.  President,  that  of  the  five  Dio- 
ceses first  organized,  which  have  been  specially  in- 
vited to  participate  in  this  celebration,  Virginia,  which 
was  the  oldest  of  all  the  settlements,  and  was  essen- 
tially a Colony  of  Churchmen,  should  here  be  preceded 
by  Connecticut,  Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  though 
followed  by  Maryland,  itself  a Church  Colony.  This 
fact,  that  the  Church  was  organized  in  these  three 
States  before  it  was  in  Virginia,  seems  to  demand 
some  explanation. 

The  Church  in  Virginia  was  from  the  very  first  the 
Established  Church.  Its  Minister  came  with  the  first 
settlers,  and  as  soon  as  even  the  rudest  provision  could 
be  made  for  public  worship,  it  was  had,  and  the  Holy 
Communion  was  administered  according  to  the  usage 
of  the  Church  of  England.  The  conversion  of  the 
savages  was  one  of  the  avowed  objects  of  the  adven- 
turers in  coming  to  this  country.  To  do  this,  no  other 
means  were  thought  of  than  the  Gospel  as  interpreted 
and  taught  by  the  Church  of  England. 

At  the  first  Legislative  Assembly,  held  at  James- 
town more  than  a year  before  the  Pilgrims  landed,  the 
members  took,  without  hesitation  on  the  part  of  any, 
the  oath  of  Supremacy.  Provision  by  law  was  at  once 
made  for  the  support  of  the  Ministers  of  the  Church, 
and  it  was  doubtless  this  provision  which  did  much  to 
undermine  the  influence  of  these  Ministers  for  the 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


87 


good  of  the  Church  and  of  the  people  committed  to 
their  charge.  No  Bishop  ever  came  to  look  after 
these  sheep  in  the  wilderness.  Both  Minister  and 
people  were  left  without  Episcopal  supervision,  and  as 
far  as  the  visitation  of  a Bishop  was  concerned,  the 
Church  in  Virginia  was  like  the  play  of  Hamlet,  with 
Hamlet  left  out.  None  of  our  Colonial  Churchmen 
were  confirmed,  unless  they  went  abroad  and  received 
the  rite  in  England.  Indeed  it  is  said  — and  I don’t 
like  to  tell  it  on  my  brother  from  Pennsylvania  — that 
Bishop  White  himself  was  never  confirmed.  And  so 
the  Virginia  ministers  who  were  inducted  officially 
were  left  to  themselves,  and  often  pursued  a course  of 
conduct  most  unworthy  of  their  high  calling. 

Their  salaries  were  paid  in  tobacco,  and  they  were 
specially  solicitous  that  that  tobacco  should  be  of  fine 
quality  and  promptly  delivered.  It  was  soon  observed 
that  the  best  tobacco  lands  got  the  best  preachers,  and 
poor  tobacco  lands  and  poor  tobacco  had  poor  preach- 
ers. And  as  a quaint  old  Churchman  wrote,  “Some 
land  was  so  mean  as  only  to  produce  Presbyterians.” 

Salaries  being  enforceable  and  not  voluntary,  the 
alienation  between  the  Clergy  and  the  people  was 
increased  by  the  unrebuked  misconduct  of  some  of  the 
Ministers  who  dishonored  their  cloth.  The  Clergy 
were  often  men  of  poor  character,  and  many  instances 
are  recorded  of  their  unworthy  lives.  Bishop  Meade 
tells  of  one  Rector  who,  having  had  a dispute  with  his 
Vestry,  settled  it  by  a personal  encounter  in  which  the 


88 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


Minister  came  off  victorious,  and  the  next  Sunday  he 
vindicated  his  conduct  in  a sermon  upon  a text  taken 
from  Nehemiah : “And  I contended  with  them,  and 
cursed  them,  and  smote  certain  of  them,  and  plucked 
out  their  hair.”  There  could  be  but  little  life  in  the 
Church  so  administered.  Yet  it  had  a hold  as  a part 
of  the  Government  to  which  Virginia  remained  loyal 
until  the  Revolution. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Parliament  party  had  no 
countenance  in  Virginia,  and  the  fugitive  Charles  the 
Second  was  invited  to  come  over  and  occupy  a throne 
in  her  borders,  from  which  loyal  invitation  she  got  the 
name  of  the  Old  Dominion.  Governor  Berkeley,  who 
was  the  royal  Governor  at  that  time,  lamented  the 
progress  of  schools  and  printing,  and  prayed  God  that 
no  such  curse  as  a printing  press  should  afflict  the 
Colony.  The  Church  was  recognized  as  a part  of  the 
Royalist  establishment ; and  so,  when  the  Revolution 
came  on,  the  Ministers  for  the  most  part  remained 
loyal  to  the  crown,  although  their  Church-members 
were  the  very  leaders  in  the  great  contest  for  the 
rights  of  the  people.  When  the  Revolution  was 
ended,  there  were  not  over  600  professing  members 
of  the  Church,  in  a population  of  nearly  800,000, 
occupying  the  territory  of  old  Virginia  before  her  dis- 
memberment, and  now  comprising  the  Dioceses  of 
Virginia,  Southern  Virginia,  and  West  Virginia.  The 
Church  then  seemed  hopelessly  ruined  ; and  thus  it 
was  that  not  until  after  Connecticut  and  Pennsylvania 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


89 


and  New  York  had  supplied  their  Dioceses  with 
Bishops  did  the  Churchmen  in  Virginia  rouse  them- 
selves to  secure  one  for  the  Old  Dominion. 

Even  after  Bishop  Madison  had  been  consecrated, 
no  adequate  provision  for  his  support  was  made  ; and 
having  made  a visitation  of  the  Churches  in  the  east- 
ern part  of  the  State,  and  confirmed  several  hundred 
persons,  he  retired  to  Williamsburg,  and  gave  his  time 
chiefly  to  his  duties  as  a professor  in  William  and  Mary 
College.  Not  only  did  the  Church  languish  from  the 
political  reasons  antedating  the  Revolution,  but  it  was 
afterwards  regarded  as  an  aristocratic  organization  ; 
the  common  people  felt  no  interest  in  it,  and  were  but 
little  encouraged  to  feel  any.  In  the  old  Colonial 
Church  of  the  Parish  in  which  I was  born  and  brought 
up,  I do  not  remember,  as  a child,  ever  to  have  seen 
among  the  congregation  any  person  who  was  not  in 
the  circle  of  society  from  which  guests  to  a dinner 
company  would  be  chosen.  The  pews  were  like  small 
rooms,  with  seats  on  three  sides  ; and  the  children 
could  scarcely  see  the  Minister  until,  after  the  reading 
of  the  Service,  he  went  into  the  high  pulpit,  always 
dressed  in  the  black  gown. 

Within  ten  years,  at  a Diocesan  Council  of  Virginia, 
when  the  subject  of  the  division  of  the  Diocese  was 
under  discussion,  a venerable  member,  a most  worthy 
Christian  gentleman  of  the  old  school,  said  on  the 
floor : “ Mr.  President,  in  this  debate  upon  the  pro- 
posed division  of  the  Diocese,  the  argument  has  been 


9o 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


used  that  a division  would  make  the  Church  grow. 
Sir,  that  is  the  very  reason  I am  opposed  to  it.  The 
Church  is  growing  too  fast  now.  We  are  getting  in 
all  sorts  of  people.  We  have  all  the  Episcopalians 
now,  sir,  and  what  more  does  anybody  want  ? ” 

Despite  this  appeal,  the  Diocese  was  divided,  and 
the  Church  continues  to  grow.  It  is  gathering  into 
her  fold  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men,  and  we  who 
are  past  middle  life  now  see  a wonderful  change,  and 
the  aversion  to  the  Church  because  of  its  Colonial  and 
ante- Revolutionary  record  has  given  place  to  a proper 
admiration  for  her  services,  veneration  for  her  antiquity 
and  faith  in  her  teachings. 

The  restoration  of  the  Church  was  more  due,  under 
the  providence  of  God,  to  that  apostolic  and  inflexible 
Evangelist,  William  Meade,  third  Bishop  of  Virginia, 
than  to  any  other  one  man.  But  the  greatest,  most 
lasting  and  farthest  reaching  of  all  the  influences,  next 
after  the  Gospel  itself,  which  tended  to  re-establish 
the  Church  in  Virginia,  was  the  Theological  Seminary 
at  Alexandria.  From  this  source  has  flowed  for  over 
sixty  years  a pure  stream  of  Evangelical  truth.  It  has 
a claim  upon  the  affectionate  interest  of  every  Massa- 
chusetts Churchman  because  it  was  there  that  his 
theological  education  was  received  by  that  majestic 
man,  Phillips  Brooks. 

The  growth  of  the  Church  in  Virginia  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  in  the  same  territory  where,  in  a popula- 
tion of  800,000,  there  were  in  1 7 90  only  600  commu- 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


9i 


nicants,  there  are  now  25,000,  in  a population  of 
2,500,000:  that  is,  the  population  has  increased  three- 
fold, the  Churchmen  have  increased  forty-fold. 

Mr.  President,  in  an  old  book  which  I have,  printed 
in  1657,  called  “A  Mirror  or  Looking  Glass  for  both 
Saints  and  Sinners,  whereunto  is  added  a geographical 
description  of  all  the  countries  in  the  known  world,” 
the  boundaries  of  Virginia  are  thus  given  : “ Virginia 
is  bounded  on  the  North  by  New  France,  on  the  South 
by  New  Spain,  on  the  East  by  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and 
its  Western  boundaries  are  unknown.” 

Those  boundaries  now,  sir,  no  longer  apply.  By 
royal  grant,  by  her  own  generosity,  and  by  the  decree 
of  the  sword,  the  territory  of  Virginia  has  been  enor- 
mously reduced.  But  as  the  State  has  contracted, 
the  Church  has  expanded.  The  Church,  no  longer 
cramped  on  the  North  by  Puritanical  severities  and 
proscriptions,  nor  prejudiced  in  the  South  by  royal 
establishments  and  aristocratic  isolation  ; but  with  the 
Sun  of  righteousness,  of  truth  and  of  liberty,  rising 
upon  her  with  healing  in  His  wings,  the  boundaries 
of  the  influence  of  the  Church,  not  in  the  West  alone 
but  in  every  quarter,  are  without  limits  and  are 
unknown. 


MR.  SAUNDERS. 

The  last  Diocese  to  be  represented  here  by  a 
speaker  to-day  is  that  of  Maryland,  whose  first 
Bishop  (Claggett)  joined  in  the  Consecration  of 


92 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


Bishop  Bass.  Its  representative  is  one  whose  father’s 
family  is  well  known  in  New  England,  and  who  on 
his  mother’s  side  is  a descendant  from  Charles  Lee, 
Attorney  General  in  the  Cabinet  of  General  Wash- 
ington during  his  second  term.  His  uncle,  Prof. 
Alpheus  Packard,  of  Bowdoin  College,  was  said  at 
the  time  of  his  death,  to  know  personally  every  living 
graduate  of  the  College.  I think  it  probably  may 
be  said  to-day  of  his  father,  Prof.  Joseph  Packard, 
of  the  Theological  School  at  Alexandria,  that  he  per- 
sonally knows  every  living  graduate  of  that  School. 
If  you  will  pardon  me  a personal  word,  his  uncle, 
George  Packard,  was  the  Rector  of  my  boyhood,  a man 
well  known  to  many  of  the  older  members  of  our 
Church  present.  For  thirty  years  a Priest  in  this  Dio- 
cese, he  was  during  that  time  the  first  Rector  of  Grace 
Church,  Lawrence,  my  own  Parish.  A physician  be- 
fore he  took  Holy  Orders,  he  was  often  able  during 
his  pastorate  to  advise  in  the  care  of  the  bodies  as 
well  as  the  souls  of  the  poorer  members  of  his  Con- 
gregation. He  died  full  of  years,  with  the  love  and 
respect  of  all  who  knew  him. 

His  nephew  is  our  guest  to-day,  a lawyer  by  pro- 
fession, prominent  in  public  life,  President  of  the 
Reform  Club  of  Baltimore,  a leader  in  the  Diocese, 
and  long  a member  of  the  General  Convention.  I 
now  introduce  to  you  Joseph  Packard,  Esq.,  of 
Baltimore. 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


93 


MR.  JOSEPH  PACKARD. 

I am  in  no  sense  an  official  representative  of  Mary- 
land ; but  as  one  who  loves  and  has  pride  in  Maryland, 
and  respects  and  honors  Massachusetts,  I may  well,  on 
behalf  of  many  like-minded  with  myself,  bring  cordial 
greetings  to  the  Diocese  of  Massachusetts  on  this  day 
which  rounds  out  her  first  century  under  a Bishop.  I 
come  from  one,  as  my  friend  Mr.  Bryan  does  from  the 
other,  of  the  two  old  Dioceses  where  ours  was  the 
Established  Church.  More  than  two  centuries  ago  an 
Act  was  passed  by  the  Colony  of  Maryland,  entitled 
“An  Act  for  the  Worship  of  Almighty  God  and  the 
Establishment  of  the  Protestant  Religion  in  this  Prov- 
ince.” Under  this  and  subsequent  Acts,  up  to  the 
time  of  the  Revolution,  our  Clergy  were  paid  and  our 
churches  were  built  by  taxes  levied  by  the  State,  sup- 
plemented by  private  beneficence.  It  is  true  that  the 
currency  in  which  these  taxes  were  paid  was  not  wholly 
satisfactory.  All  the  Colonies,  like  other  communities 
where  finance  is  little  understood,  experimented  with 
the  currency,  and  the  most  that  can  be  said  for  Mary- 
land is  that  her  currency,  tobacco,  was  better  than  the 
wampum  of  New  England  because  of  its  intrinsic  value. 
Still  this  value  varied  much,  not  only  from  the  vicissi- 
tudes of  the  seasons  and  the  fluctuations  of  trade,  but 
also  from  the  varieties  of  the  crop.  A Colonial  Clergy- 
man felt  that  the  lines  had  fallen  to  him  in  pleasant 
places  when  he  was  in  charge  of  “ a sweet  scented 


94 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


Parish,” — so  called  not  from  the  odor  of  sanctity  that 
there  abounded,  but  because  the  Parish  produced  the 
“sweet  scented”  tobacco,  as  distinguished  from  the 
coarser  and  less  valuable  variety  known  as  the 
“ Orinoco.” 

The  characteristics  of  this  Colonial  Church  in  Mary- 
land were  such  as  might  have  been  expected  from  its 
environment,  &nd  being  such,  they  have  in  large  meas- 
ure prevailed  up  to  the  present  day. 

Toleration  must  be  placed  first  among  its  character- 
istics. Founded  as  a Roman  Catholic  Colony,  the  set- 
tlers of  other  religious  beliefs  had  always,  for  whatever 
reasons  — and  I shall  not  stop  to  discuss  these  — the 
largest  liberty.  The  famous  Toleration  Act  of  1649, 
passed  when  the  Long  Parliament  was  in  control  in 
England,  held  that  “ the  enforcement  of  the  conscience 
has  always  been  of  dangerous  consequence,”  and  pro- 
ceeded to  enact  that  “ no  persons  professing  to  believe 
in  Jesus  Christ  should  be  molested  in  respect  of  their 
religion  or  in  the  free  exercise  thereof.”  The  clause 
which  provides  for  “ those  reproaching  any  with  oppro- 
brious names  of  religious  distinction,”  in  its  enumera- 
tion of  nearly  a score  of  such  vituperative  epithets  — 
including  Puritan,  Idolater,  Jesuit,  Lutheran,  Anabaptist 
and  Calvinist  — indicates  alike  the  breadth  of  the  tol- 
eration and  the  influences  which  brought  the  Act  into 
being. 

Early  in  the  history  of  the  Colony  the  Protestant 
settlers  had  come  to  largely  outnumber  the  Roman 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


95 


Catholics,  and  after  the  Protestant  Revolution  the 
establishment  of  the  Church  of  England  soon  followed. 
But,  with  the  exception  of  a few  instances  which  are 
to  be  deplored,  toleration  was  always  exercised  ; and 
certainly  the  spirit  of  toleration  has  continued  to  be 
part  of  the  atmosphere  of  Maryland.  Later  on,  the 
position  of  the  State  on  the  border  between  the  two 
great  sections  of  our  country  induced  a similar  attitude 
in  regard  to  other  questions  ; so  that  I make  bold  to 
say  that  nowhere  in  the  world  is  there  a place  where 
there  is  a more  “ decent  respect  to  the  opinions  of 
mankind” — to  use  a famous  phrase  with  a new  appli- 
tion  — than  in  the  State  which  bears  on  her  escutcheon 
the  noble  motto  of  the  Calverts,  “ fatti  maschii,  parole 
femine ,”  or,  as  it  has  been  — somewhat  benignly  — 
translated,  “ courage  and  courtesy.” 

We  have  lived  for  these  two  centuries  and  more  in 
kindly  relations  with  our  Roman  Catholic  brethren. 
That  Church  has  always  included  some  of  our  best 
people,  and  it  is  only  comparatively  recently  that  its 
native  adherents  have  been  outnumbered  by  those  of 
foreign  birth.  Living  side  by  side  with  us  all  along, 
that  Church  has  never  had  for  Marylanders  the  fasci- 
nating glamour  of  the  unknown  and  the  mysterious. 
Perhaps  it  is  for  this  very  reason  that  a striking  feature 
of  our  Church  in  Maryland  has  ever  been  its  staunch 
Protestantism. 

In  those  regions  and  those  classes  of  society 
where  there  is  little  movement,  ancient  usages  of 


96 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


speech  settle  down  and  remain.  So,  in  the  country 
districts  of  Southern  Maryland,  if  you  are  told  that 
a certain  building-  is  a “Protestant”  Church,  you 
may  know  that  it  is  the  building  which  before  the 
Revolution  belonged  to  the  Church  of  England,  but, 
since,  has  belonged  to  what  Maryland  herself  first 
named  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  This  old-time 
name  among  the  plain  people  has  been  truly  descrip- 
tive of  the  Church  throughout  its  history.  There  have 
been  scattered  instances  of  people  belonging  to  our 
Church  in  Maryland  who  have  failed  to  appreciate  the 
significance  or  worth  of  the  great  Protestant  move- 
ment, but  the  great  mass  of  her  members,  clerical  and 
lay,  have  been  Protestant  to  the  core. 

I have  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  organizers  of  our 
Diocese  of  Maryland  gave  the  name  which  is  borne  by 
our  Church  throughout  the  land.  They  took  the  old 
familiar  name  by  which  it  was  known  among  the  peo- 
ple— “the  Protestant  Church” — and  added  to  it  the 
word  Episcopal,  in  token  that  they  would,  at  the  ear- 
liest opportunity,  return  to  the  Catholic  order  of  super- 
vision by  Bishops,  of  which  for  one  hundred  and 
seventy-five  years  these  Colonies  had  been  deprived 
through  the  neglect  of  the  English  Church.  They  did 
this,  too,  at  a time  when  the  word  Bishop  was  more 
than  ever  discredited  in  this  country,  as  being  the 
name  of  a supposed  appendage  of  the  civil  government 
from  which  they  had  just  become  emancipated.  That 
they  should  have  at  such  a time,  in  such  an  outspoken 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


97 


manner,  declared  their  principles,  deserves  remark,  not 
to  say  commendation. 

This  leads  me  to  suggest,  as  a third  characteristic  of 
our  Church  in  Maryland,  its  strong  attachment  to  the 
distinctive  order  and  discipline  of  this  Church. 

While  our  people  in  Maryland  have,  I think,  ever 
been  brotherly  minded  toward  the  “ other  Christian 
Churches,”  as  they  are  called  in  the  Maryland  Declara- 
tion of  1783,  they  have  been  strongly  persuaded  that  in 
this  Church  is  to  be  found  “ a more  excellent  way.”  It 
may  be  that  those  of  our  brethren  who  left  us  to  form 
the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church — they  were  not  many 
in  Maryland,  and  may  they  soon  return  — have  thought 
of  us  as  a High  Church  Diocese  ; it  may  be  that  those 
whose  ideas  of  Catholic  order  and  usage  are  bounded 
by  the  narrowest  view  of  Catholicity,  now  think  of  us 
as  a Low  Church  Diocese : — Maryland  has  been  the 
same  all  along. 

But  I should  ill  express  the  Maryland  idea  if,  on 
such  an  occasion  as  this,  I failed  to  recognize  the  worth 
of  Massachusetts.  I shall  not  attempt  her  eulogy  ; 
her  own  sons  can  best  perform  this  pious  office.  It 
has  been  supposed  in  the  other  States  that  they  are 
always  equal  to  the  task.  I say  this  without  a touch  of 
sarcasm,  for  I hold  that  those  who  are  closest  in 
acquaintance  and  affection  are  best  fitted  to  describe 
the  object  of  their  veneration.  Let  us  have  the  picture 
glowing  with  life,  and  we  can  make  allowance  for  par- 
tiality. Yet  we  outsiders  can  at  least  express  in  some 


98 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon  of 


measure  our  appreciation  of  the  sturdiness  of  the  Mas- 
sachusetts type  of  character,  and  of  the  debt  which 
religion  in  this  country  owes  to  her  worthies,  even 
though  they  happened  to  belong  to  the  Established 
Church  of  Massachusetts,  instead  of  to  the  Church  of 
England  as  by  law  established. 

If  the  Maryland  Churchman  who  wrote  “ The  Star- 
spangled  Banner  ” has  contributed  to  our  Hymnal  one 
of  its  most  beloved  hymns,  we  cannot  forget  that  an- 
other, equally  precious,  came  from  Ray  Palmer,  and 
two  of  our  best  Christmas  hymns  from  Edmund  H. 
Sears,  representatives  respectively  of  the  Yale  and 
Harvard  schools  of  theology.  Nor  can  we  forget  that 
from  that  State  Church  of  Massachusetts  have  come  to 
our  own  communion  some  of  the  strongest  and  most 
useful  of  our  Clergy  and  Laity.  These  men,  to  whom 
our  Church  owes  so  much,  drew  their  stout  fibre  from 
the  hard  but  vigorous  soil  of  the  old  Puritan  hierarchy. 

The  relations  between  the  Colonial  Church  of  Mary- 
land and  the  struggling  Episcopal  Churches  in  Massa- 
chusetts were  probably  more  of  sympathy  than  of 
anything  palpable.  The  conditions  of  Colonial  life 
made  the  distance  between  us  a wide  separation, — as 
many  days  then  as  hours  now.  But  I am  sure  that  the 
prosperous  Church  in  Maryland  must  have  thought 
with  tenderness  of  her  feeble  sister  here,  living  in  an 
environment  of  positive,  if  not  bitter,  antagonism. 
And  when  it  came  to  the  time  of  the  Revolution,  it 
must  have  been  felt  that  the  Churchmen  of  Massachu- 


The  Episcopalian  Club. 


99 


setts,  in  their  long  contest  for  a free  Church  in  a free 
State,  had,  from  the  opposition  of  their  adversaries, 
learned  better  than  others  to  appreciate  and  to  set 
forth  the  spiritual  power  of  the  Church  as  its  true  title 
to  mastery. 

From  those  days  of  cold  comfort  for  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  Massachusetts  how  great  is  the  change  to 
the  condition  of  things  which  we  see  now ! The  genial 
influences  of  Griswold  thawed  the  icy  crust  which  stood 
between  our  Church  and  the  strong  currents  of  New 
England  life,  and  made  way  for  the  coming  torrent  of 
which  Brooks  was  at  once  a type  and  a potent  cause. 
It  is  a matter  of  congratulation  to  you,  which  we  of 
Maryland  can  offer  without  a shadow  of  envy,  that  the 
progress  of  our  Church  in  this  Diocese  has  been  of 
late  more  rapid  than  in  our  own.  In  1886  the  number 
of  Clergy  in  the  whole  of  Maryland,  including  Easton 
and  the  District  of  Columbia,  was  ten  per  cent.,  and 
the  number  of  communicants  about  twenty  per  cent., 
greater  than  those  in  Massachusetts.  In  the  ten  years 
that  followed,  the  situation  was  reversed  by  a some- 
what less  per  centage,  the  growth  in  Maryland  having 
been  twenty-five  per  cent,  in  Clergy  and  communicants, 
while  Massachusetts  had  increased  forty  per  cent,  in 
Clergy  and  sixty  per  cent,  in  communicants. 

The  figures  are  as  follows  : 


Communi- 

1886.  Clergy.  cants. 
Maryland  . . 195  27,023 

Mass 178  22,268 


Communi- 

1896.  Clergy.  cants. 

Maryland  . . 246  33,729 

Mass 251  35,064 


IOO 


Addresses  at  the  Luncheon. 


We  are  still  much  before  you  in  the  proportion  of 
communicants  to  population  ; but  if,  in  the  coming  de- 
cade, you  shall  equal  or  surpass  us  in  this  particular 
also,  none  more  than  we  will  rejoice  that  you  have 
entered  into  the  land  that  remained  to  be  possessed. 

The  Lord  God  of  your  fathers  make  you  a thousand 
times  so  many  more  as  ye  are,  and  bless  you  as  He 
hath  promised. 


. . V*  . ' 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


